ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

TRANSPORT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Colne-Skipton Rail Link

Andrew Stephenson: What assessment he has made of the potential for reintroducing the Colne to Skipton rail link.

Simon Burns: The Department for Transport has not made an independent assessment of the economic benefits arising from reopening the Skipton to Colne line. Where local travel needs are the central objective, we look to the local authorities concerned to take the first step in evaluating benefits and prioritising available resources.

Andrew Stephenson: I hope the Minister has seen my early-day motion 479, setting out the work of the Skipton East Lancashire Rail Action Partnership campaign group, which is fighting for the line to be reopened. Will he meet with me and representatives of SELRAP to discuss the huge potential benefits of reopening the line?

Simon Burns: I hope my hon. Friend is reassured when I say that I have seen and read early-day motion 479. I am more than happy to meet with him and, if he agrees, I think it would be sensible to meet with the relevant local authorities as well.

East Coast Main Line

Chi Onwurah: If he will consider abandoning the planned privatisation of the East Coast Mainline rail service.

Patrick McLoughlin: Following the tabling of this question, I considered what the hon. Lady is asking me to do, but I have decided to follow the policy set by the previous Government, who believed in franchising.

Chi Onwurah: Since 1997 we have seen Great North Eastern Railway fail and National Express fail, but now we have East Coast trains returning £187 million to the
	taxpayer. Why on earth would the Minister want to swap that for the unmitigated disaster of the west coast tender? Is not that free-marketism gone mad?

Patrick McLoughlin: I draw on what the shadow Lord Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), said when he was a Transport Minister:
	“The rail franchising system was examined by the National Audit Office last year, and was found to deliver good value for money”
	and “steadily improving” services. He continued:
	“Passenger numbers are at their highest levels since the 1940s,”
	and
	“punctuality is more than 90 per cent.”—[Official Report, 1 July 2009; Vol. 495, c. 425-6.]
	I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman said then, and I think it is the right way forward.

Anne McIntosh: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on continuing the policies of this Government as well as the last, but there are lessons to be learned for both the east coast and the west coast franchise. Will he ensure that the product of the east coast main line service will remain the premier service in the land?

Patrick McLoughlin: I want all services to be good services and to serve hon. Members’ constituents, but of course we have lessons to learn—lessons from the way in which certain franchises were unable to continue under the previous Government. I made a statement to the House on Monday in which I said that we would learn those lessons. Two reviews are being undertaken, and I look forward to receiving their representations.

Lilian Greenwood: The Secretary of State continues to claim that privatising the east coast rail service is necessary to deliver new investment, but he knows full well that both the planned improvements for the line and the new generation of inter-city trains are being funded by the taxpayer. In the light of the west coast fiasco, will he rethink his opposition to allowing the east coast line to be run as a not-for-private-profit service, not least since, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) said, it returned £187 million to taxpayers last year—money that, from next year, will have to be split with shareholders?

Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Lady is rewriting history: the simple fact is that the previous Government were committed to franchising on the east coast main line—[ Interruption . ] The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) says he is not bothered about that any more; I shall remind him of things that he supported in the past but now attacks.

Dennis Skinner: Who supported the nationalisation of rail?

Mr Speaker: We are grateful for that.

Rail Electrification

Robert Buckland: What recent progress his Department has made on rail electrification.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Government are committed to an extensive rolling programme of electrification; by the end of the decade, around three quarters of passenger miles travelled in England and Wales will be on electric trains. Electrification will deliver trains that are cleaner, quieter, faster and cheaper to operate, with more capacity for passenger and freight customers.

Robert Buckland: Electrification of the great western line through Swindon and beyond will allow increased train capacity. Will my right hon. Friend ensure that the need for more seats to allow more passengers to use the service in comfort will be at the heart of the greater western franchise process when it is reopened?

Patrick McLoughlin: Indeed it will. I know that my hon. Friend has campaigned for greater capacity on that line for some time. I believe that electrification will lead to an increase of 20% in seating capacity on the line by 2018.

Clive Betts: I welcome the Secretary of State to his job. As he will know, I welcome the go-ahead for the tram train pilot project between Sheffield and Rotherham. The trams will not be delivered until 2015 and there will probably then be a couple years of evaluation. If the scheme is successful—I am sure that it will be—rolling it out will depend on having underused heavy rail lines that are electrified. Will he bear that in mind when considering future electrification?

Patrick McLoughlin: I will certainly bear in mind the hon. Gentleman’s comments. He has always fought hard for an improved service for his constituents and in the Sheffield area. I will look closely at what he has said.

Ian Swales: Does the new Secretary of State recognise the need for electrification in the Tees valley so that we can have a metro service to connect the large conurbation together?

Patrick McLoughlin: I take that as a bid, and it is one that I will look at in more detail. I am sure that I will hear much more about it from my hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: We in the south Wales valleys are delighted that those lines are to be electrified, but can the Secretary of State tell us when that work will start and how much faster journey times between Treherbert, Llwynypia and Cardiff will be? If he is unable to pronounce those place names or tell us today, will he please write to me?

Patrick McLoughlin: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) for managing to get electrification for Wales into the original programme, and I am very glad that that is something that this Government will—

Chris Bryant: I welcomed it.

Patrick McLoughlin: I know that the hon. Gentleman welcomed it. I am glad that this Government will give us something that he never managed to achieve when he was in government. I think that it will start in 2015.

Neil Carmichael: In view of the need for strategic planning, will the Secretary of State bear in mind that everyone would like electrified railway lines and that provision should be made to give comfort to investors and for infrastructure developments?

Patrick McLoughlin: As I said earlier, electrification brings many advantages to the rail network, so what my hon. Friend asks for will be delivered by electrification. The plans we have put forward are the most ambitious put forward by any Government.

Alison Seabeck: South-west MPs met yesterday to discuss the pause in the greater western franchise. One of the concerns raised was the impact of the current ring-fenced electrification programme, which had been built into people’s bid plans. The issue was whether we would in fact see a worse service as a result of those electrification plans, as we have been unable to take the franchise bid forward and there are new timetables because of the works required for electrification.

Patrick McLoughlin: As with any major infrastructure project, there will be delays while that is taken forward, but ultimately there will be a far better service.

Rail Capacity (London/Brimsdown)

Nick de Bois: What recent representations he has received on investment for a third railway track between London, Liverpool Street and Brimsdown.

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend refers to a small scheme involving a piece of extra track in the Brimsdown area. The Mayor of London wrote to the Secretary of State this week commending the alternative, but more expensive, scheme, which would also facilitate economic regeneration.

Nick de Bois: The Minister will know that the project enjoys substantial support from Network Rail, north London boroughs and the Mayor’s office. It is crucial to the development of north London, including for potentially up to 33% of new homes, and for more than 20,000 jobs. Will he meet me to discuss support for financial frontloading with resulting payback from local authorities, developers and stakeholders? Any expression of support would be welcome.

Stephen Hammond: I will of course be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and any other colleagues he feels would be appropriate.

Alan Haselhurst: Accepting that half a loaf is better than no bread, will my hon. Friend nevertheless acknowledge that a much more substantial scheme for improving track capacity on that line is the only way to provide commuters and passengers travelling to or from Stansted airport with the kind of service that by now should be seen as essential—and may I join the meeting?

Stephen Hammond: My right hon. Friend knows that the second high-level output specification package—HLOS 2 —commits Network Rail to providing extra capacity to meet peak demand in that area. Part of that will be done by having new trains between London, Bishop’s Stortford and Cambridge, and another part is sorting out the capacity constraints south of Broxbourne, which will help his constituents. I would of course be delighted if he joined the meeting.

Railway Stations

Peter Aldous: What funding he has allocated to improve railway stations.

Paul Uppal: What funding he has allocated to improve railway stations.

Norman Baker: A major programme of station improvements is under way, with several key stations, such as Birmingham New Street, being significantly enhanced. We are also continuing to fund improvements through the national stations improvement programme, the Access for All programme and the station commercial project facility. In addition, enhancements are planned at stations as part of franchise commitments.

Peter Aldous: I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. The new hourly service on the East Suffolk line starts on 10 December. That is welcome news, although unfortunately the stations at Beccles and Lowestoft remain in poor condition. Will the Minister encourage Network Rail to work with Greater Anglia and Suffolk county council to upgrade the two stations and ensure that the necessary line maintenance is carried out so that maximum speeds can be achieved and that the benefits of the new service can be fully realised?

Norman Baker: Yes is the simple answer. The train operator has a commitment to refresh all its stations before 2014. It hopes that the work will include Lowestoft, Woodbridge and the stations in between and be completed before the service enhancement. The bus-rail interchange improvement at Lowestoft station will result in an improved waiting environment for users. Network Rail is also looking to develop a commercial scheme that could provide improvements at the station.

Paul Uppal: May I seek an assurance from the Minister that any future tendering process for the west coast main line will consider investment in Wolverhampton station? We have recently benefited from investment in the Wolverhampton interchange; the bus station in particular has been a real boon to Wolverhampton passengers. I am anxious that that should continue for Wolverhampton train station.

Norman Baker: I was pleased to be able to open the new bus station in Wolverhampton, which represents a significant improvement for my hon. Friend’s area. I recognise and am sympathetic to the case that he is making. Obviously, a review of the west coast main line franchise is under way and it would be improper to speculate on that. Nevertheless, he makes a good case, which will be taken into account.

Russell Brown: Many colleagues on both sides of the House are looking forward to railway station improvements as a result of the west coast main line franchise. All of us in the all-party group on the west coast main line, of which I am joint chair, are disappointed that we have arrived at this position. A journey for a commuter or other rail traveller involves the experience not only on the train, but at the railway station. There is also the issue of improved parking facilities at railway stations. The Government need to ensure that those issues will be included in any future franchises—and perhaps there could be a little investment from the Government themselves.

Norman Baker: As I mentioned a moment ago, a major programme of station improvement is under way, and that is not affected by the franchise reviews. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about particular stations on the west coast, and I am sure that it will be taken into account. The franchise process will emerge stronger as a result of the reviews now taking place.

Seema Malhotra: Hounslow cycling network, whose representatives I am meeting today, has been promoting the ease and safety of cycling. Will the Minister confirm what plans he has to improve the provision of cycling racks at railway stations?

Norman Baker: That is very much part of the work undertaken in the Department through the door-to-door journeys initiative, which I have begun. In addition, I recently allocated £7 million to the cycle-rail working group to improve facilities for cyclists at stations. We look to franchise deliverers to enhance cycle provision as a consequence of franchises that are let.

Rail Electrification (Welsh Valleys Lines)

Nick Smith: What his plans are for electrification of the Welsh Valleys lines.

Simon Burns: On 16 July, the Government announced the electrification of the Welsh Valleys lines and the line between Bridgend and Swansea. Under the plans, about two thirds of the population of Wales will be on an electrified train route. The cost of the projects is estimated at some £350 million and the work is expected to be undertaken between 2015 and 2019, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said.

Nick Smith: Passenger numbers on the Ebbw Vale to Cardiff line have gone through the carriage roof. Transport infrastructure is crucial in Blaenau Gwent, which again saw unemployment rise last month. Will the Minister ensure that the Welsh Government have the funds to redouble the line and improve train frequency and will he bring forward the 2019 date for the completion of electrification, to boost our economy?

Simon Burns: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the answer that I have just given is a significant boost not only to the Welsh valleys, but to the main line from Cardiff to Swansea. It will create tremendous
	opportunities for regeneration for business and other passenger travel, and there will be the ancillary advantage of changes and improvements to the rolling stock once the project has been completed.

Michael Fabricant: Having just received a speeding fine from South Wales police for going at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone—it was quite a shock for me this morning—the news about electrification and all the other good news that the Minister mentions greatly encourages me to use the railways in future.

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. That just goes to show that the old adage is always the best adage: “Let the train take the strain”.

Blue Badges

Annette Brooke: What recent changes he has made to the national guidelines on the issue of blue badges. [R]

Norman Baker: The Department has recently updated its non-statutory guidance for local authorities to reflect reforms to the blue badge system. One of the main issues with the scheme concerned local authority administration, which was inconsistent and inefficient. The updated guidance aims to improve consistency and to remind local authorities of the eligibility criteria set out in the regulations. Local authorities remain responsible for taking decisions about an applicant’s eligibility for a blue badge.

Annette Brooke: I thank the Minister for his answer. Many people such as me who have difficulty walking—seven months after an accident—and even more difficulty getting in and out of a car in an ordinary car parking space, look longingly at empty disabled car parking spaces and yet cannot get a temporary blue badge. What can and will the Government and local councils do to address this situation for the future?

Norman Baker: I am very sympathetic to my hon. Friend and understand the case she makes. I have looked at the temporary issuing of badges for the sort of situation that she describes. One of the downsides would be tremendous pressure on the limited number of parking spaces available. In June this year I issued an advice note to local authorities indicating how they might deal with locally determined concessions to deal with such situations, and I suggest that she pursue the matter with Poole unitary authority.

Natascha Engel: I have two elderly constituents, both long-term blue badge holders, whose only changing condition is that they are getting older and less mobile. They were told that they had to reapply to the county council for a new blue badge. When they did so, they were assessed very briefly over the phone and told that they were no longer eligible. Does the Minister really think that mobility can be assessed by a brief phone call?

Norman Baker: To be honest, that does sound a little bit cursory, but the assessment of eligibility criteria is a matter for local authorities, not for the Government. It
	is important to stress that we have not changed the eligibility criteria at all except to widen them slightly. The hon. Lady needs to pursue the point with her local council.

West Coast Main Line

Luciana Berger: What the cost to the public purse has been of cancelling the award of the west coast main line rail franchise to date.

Patrick McLoughlin: Spend to date on contingency planning by Directly Operated Railways is about £1 million. The cost of reimbursing bid costs to the four bidders is estimated to be about £40 million.

Luciana Berger: I thank the Minister for his response. He used the word “estimated”. How much does he intend to pay to First Group, whose shares have fallen by 20% since this fiasco began? How can he be sure that he will be able to protect taxpayers from further and significant liability?

Patrick McLoughlin: I referred in my answer to the estimates that I gave to the House on Monday. They are the best available estimates at the moment, and that is why I will stick by them.

Tony Baldry: Should not the Opposition be enjoined first to cast the beam out of their own eyes, so that they are better able to take out the mote from their brother’s eye? From the way they bang on about this, one would have thought that Labour in government never wasted a single penny, but the National Audit Office found that it wasted £40 million on an asylum accommodation centre in my constituency where a single sod was never turned and a brick never laid, and we never had a single apology for that.

Patrick McLoughlin: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. Let us stick to the west coast main line.

Patrick McLoughlin: In the light of that direction, Mr Speaker, I am not sure how to answer the question. I am responsible for what goes on at the Department of Transport, but if I moved on to the money that was wasted by the previous Government, I think I might need an Adjournment debate.

Derek Twigg: I welcome the Secretary of State and the new members of his team; I am sure that they will do a very conscientious job.
	What has been the cost of the consultants and legal advisers employed by the Department in the run-up to the legal case?

Patrick McLoughlin: I do not have the exact figures at the moment. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State answered some written questions on the matter yesterday, and a wide range of figures are available. The figures I gave in response to an earlier question are £40 million and £1 million.

Nigel Mills: Will the Secretary of State confirm what the cost would have been of proceeding with a flawed tendering process and awarding that contract? On the same basis, will he also reconsider the Thameslink rolling stock contract, to make sure that there has been no mistake with that either?

Patrick McLoughlin: I assure my hon. Friend that I asked those questions rigorously in the Department and I have been assured that this was a wholly different process. As I have said, I am awaiting the outcome of the two inquiries that I have set up.

Maria Eagle: Will the Secretary of State admit that taxpayers are set to be stung for far more than the £40 million he is paying back to bidders for the west coast franchise, because what he has not included in that figure is the cost of paying back bidders for the suspended Great Western, Essex Thameside and Thameslink franchises? Will he now come clean to taxpayers about exactly how much of their money will be poured down the drain as a result of his franchising fiasco?

Patrick McLoughlin: I have given the figures that are available to the House. The other contracts to which the hon. Lady refers are on hold—they have not been let.

Maria Eagle: Is it not the truth that the cost to taxpayers is likely to be tens of millions of pounds more by the time the Secretary of State has Britain’s rail services back on track? He will hand millions over to private train companies; millions will be spent running three competitions for this franchise when he should have been running only one; and millions more will be lost if companies decide to sue the Government for the losses that his Department’s incompetence have caused them. Instead of the Department for Transport’s own board investigating itself, do not taxpayers deserve a truly independent inquiry into what went wrong and who was to blame for so much of their money being poured down the drain?

Patrick McLoughlin: When I was told about this incident and the mistakes that were made, I ordered two immediate inquiries. I wanted to get to the bottom of it as quickly as possible, and that is what I have done. I am sure that we will not be short of a number of inquiries, which will take place subsequent to the Laidlaw and Richard Brown inquiries. I expect that the Public Accounts Committee will want to look at the issue.

High Speed 2

Karen Lumley: What recent assessment he has made of the potential benefits of High Speed 2 to businesses in Birmingham and its surrounding areas.

Patrick McLoughlin: HS2 will transform journey times, capacity and connectivity between the Birmingham stations and Leeds, Manchester and London, and will release substantial capacity on the existing rail network. This will help the wider west midlands area to fulfil its economic potential.

Karen Lumley: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many jobs will be involved in the construction and operation of the first phase of the railway to the midlands?

Patrick McLoughlin: A number of opportunities will become available as a result of HS2. We expect there to be 9,000 jobs during construction and 1,500 permanent operational jobs, as well as a huge amount of regeneration in the areas served by HS2.

Mark Lazarowicz: HS2 is important to Scotland as well as those places south of the border mentioned by the Secretary of State. Will he update us on what discussions he has had with the Scottish Government on the plans for HS2 to provide benefits to Scotland as well?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am due to meet Scottish Ministers in the not-too-distant future, and I have had one phone conversation with the First Minister. Last week I announced that we will undertake a study to take HS2 further north into Scotland.

Cheryl Gillan: On 7 July 2011, in a letter on transparency to all the Secretaries of State, the Prime Minister wrote:
	“As you know, transparency is at the heart of our agenda for Government.”
	The Department and the Cabinet Office are currently concealing information and refusing to publish the Major Projects Authority report on HS2. Will the Secretary of State now show that the Prime Minister’s words are not meaningless when it comes to HS2 and publish that report immediately?

Patrick McLoughlin: HS2 will be the subject of a huge amount of parliamentary time as we prepare the hybrid Bill and bring it before Parliament in the next Session.

Jonathan Edwards: Arguably one of the benefits of HS2 is that it will create extra capacity on the conventional network. However, these services are highly unlikely to be profitable and will require extra subsidy. What calculations has the Department made about the extra cost of that subsidy and the subsequent Barnett consequentials that the Welsh Government will be entitled to?

Patrick McLoughlin: We are some way off getting to that stage. I am dealing with a number of other figures at the moment, so I will take away the hon. Gentleman’s question and think about it a little more deeply, rather than give a rushed answer at the Dispatch Box.

Andrea Leadsom: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concerns of constituents up and down the route of the line who have been unable to access the exceptional hardship scheme? When will he start his consultation on fair compensation? We said that we would not allow anybody to have to pay with their own assets or in terms of their own life, and yet that has proven to not be the case.

Patrick McLoughlin: I well understand that point and the opposition that HS2 has generated. Any major infrastructure brings about a lot of opposition. I hope to be able to publish the Government’s consultation on compensation in the not-too-distant future.

Light Rail Projects (Health and Safety)

Greg Mulholland: What recent assessment he has made of health and safety standards for light rail projects; and if he will make a statement.

Norman Baker: The Office of Rail Regulation has responsibility for health and safety on light rail and tramways. The Department has therefore made no formal assessment, although our recent publication, “Green Light for Light Rail”, seeks to ensure that excessive costs are driven out, while appropriate safety standards are maintained, thereby putting light rail in a stronger position from which to grow.

Greg Mulholland: I thank the Minister for that answer and for his support for light rail. However, having looked at the success of light rail in other countries, particularly across the channel, compared with the costs here, we see that one problem is the imposition of high rail safety standards, which mean that light rail is over-engineered and over-expensive. What will he do to change that?

Norman Baker: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that matter, which was one reason why we produced the “Green Light for Light Rail” report. We have made progress through the two summits that I have held subsequently towards more proportionate standards for light rail, which should bring the costs down while ensuring that safety is maintained.

Mr Speaker: I call Sir Alan Beith. Not here.

Careless Driving

Lee Scott: What steps he is taking to address careless driving.

Stephen Hammond: On 14 June, the Government consulted on proposals to make careless driving a fixed penalty offence, under which drivers who commit less severe examples of the offence, such as driving too close to another vehicle, would be offered educational courses. We hope that that will reduce the instances of careless driving in the not-too-distant future.

Lee Scott: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest causes of careless driving, even though it is a penalty offence, is people who use mobile phones near schools and more generally, causing accidents? Will that problem be looked into further, because it seems to be spreading?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. The use of a mobile phone will qualify for an increased fixed penalty, if that is what the consultation decides. In more serious cases, that offence can be prosecuted with considerably greater penalties.

East Coast Main Line (Rolling Stock)

Edward Leigh: What recent progress he has made on updating rolling stock on the east coast main line.

Simon Burns: In July this year, the Government announced a £4.5 billion investment in new trains under the intercity express programme. That will include new trains to replace the existing high-speed train sets on the east coast main line.

Edward Leigh: In the eastern counties, we are very appreciative of the fast service and the excellent rolling stock up to Newark. However, when one gets beyond Newark and into Lincolnshire, one enters a time that land forgot—and, indeed, that the Department for Transport seems to have forgotten. Will the Minister assure me that, as part of the invitation to tender process, he will ensure that there is sufficient good-quality rolling stock, in particular diesel trains, so that the long-standing campaign involving me, my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) for a direct service to Cleethorpes, via Market Rasen, has some chance of success?

Simon Burns: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I hope that I can go some way towards reassuring him by saying that the Government are committed to having 35 new trains on the east coast, which will be a combination of electric trains and bi-mode diesel and electric trains. It would be premature to say where those trains will feature on the network, but consideration will be given to the need to improve the service along the whole line.

Worthing/Lancing Bypass

Tim Loughton: If he will commission a feasibility study for a Worthing/Lancing bypass due to traffic congestion on the A27.

Stephen Hammond: The Department has no current plans to undertake a feasibility study into proposals for a Worthing/Lancing bypass. We have been clear that the funding is currently focused on delivering schemes already in the Highways Agency’s investment programme.

Tim Loughton: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. With it, he inherits the issue of the lack of a Worthing bypass, which predates his parliamentary career and mine. Worthing is the largest town in Sussex. The major house-building programmes that are planned for my area all feed out on to the A27. The situation will only get worse. Will he come down and sit in the traffic on the A27, as have his predecessors, to see the problem for himself? Will he agree to put back on the agenda a value-for-money study of one of the busiest roads in the south-east of England that needs investment?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is, as ever, generous in his remarks of welcome. His invitation is equally generous, and I do not think I can refuse it.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Graham Evans. Not here.

Topical Questions

Craig Whittaker: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Patrick McLoughlin: In addition to my recent statements on franchising, last week I announced that passengers will benefit from a reduction of up to 2% in the planned rises in many train fares. That will benefit more than a quarter of a million annual season ticket holders and more weekly and monthly ticket holders. I also announced £170 million for 57 vital road schemes to boost the economy, reduce congestion and improve safety. Earlier this month the Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), announced the introduction of new rules better to protect holidaymakers from losing out if their travel company fails, giving UK holidaymakers a simple, straightforward way to know what the financial protection for their holiday is.

Craig Whittaker: Metro in west Yorkshire has commissioned a bus service for the upper Calder Valley, a rural community, which for the past year has been served by an incredibly unreliable and poor service. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether there is a process in place for holding a commissioner to account when they do not take action on poor performance against contracts?

Patrick McLoughlin: I sympathise with the obviously frustrating experience that my hon. Friend’s constituents are having. I know that he has been in correspondence withthe Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who leads on the matter in the Department. The Government have provided an extra £10 million of funding this year to help kick-start the development of community transport services in rural areas, and west Yorkshire received £385,000 of that. I am interested in hearing about the experiences of my hon. Friend’s constituents, however, and we will look into the matter.

Jim Fitzpatrick: On Tuesday the Road Safety Foundation, chaired by Lord Dubs, launched its annual report. It stated:
	“Simple attention to safety engineering detail has resulted in extraordinary cuts in road deaths and serious injuries”.
	Other leading countries in road safety are committed to improving the safety star rating of their national road networks. What emphasis are our Government placing on that?

Patrick McLoughlin: We place a lot of emphasis on it. I spent a morning a few weeks ago with road traffic officers in the west midlands, looking at how they operate their managed motorways. They have had great success in reducing accidents on the M42 since it has become a managed motorway. Road safety is incredibly high on our agenda, and as I said, we have announced £170 million for relieving pinch points, which I hope will also help safety.

Mary Macleod: I welcome the Government’s decision to set up a commission on aviation capacity. I hope that it will create a new, innovative solution to capacity needs and realise that a third, fourth and fifth runway at Heathrow is not the answer. May I urge my right hon. Friend to encourage the commission to report as quickly as possible?

Patrick McLoughlin: I believe that setting up the commission was the right way to move forward. I hope to be able to announce the rest of the commission’s membership in the not-too-distant future. My hon. Friend will be able to make recommendations to the Davies commission, which will bring interim recommendations to the Government in 2013. Although some people say that it will take rather a long time, it will not take that long once it gets under way.

Heidi Alexander: Given the Department’s abject failure to manage the franchise process for the west coast main line, what are the Secretary of State’s views on the possibility of Transport for London being the franchising authority in future for the London parts of the south-eastern network?

Patrick McLoughlin: I am due to meet the Mayor of London in the next few hours, and that may be one issue that he wants to bring forward to me. People will have different views about whether that would be the right way forward.

Mark Garnier: When addressing the thorny issue of airport expansion, will the Minister look carefully at the huge economic benefits that can be offered at Birmingham airport? Not only is there extensive local support for expansion, but it is an excellent airport.

Simon Burns: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He makes a valid point: Birmingham is an excellent airport and I was extremely pleased to be able to present it with the airport of the year award at last Thursday’s national transport awards. On the wider issue, Birmingham, like many other regional airports, has a vital role to play in servicing its local community and pushing forward the growth agenda. As my hon. Friend will be aware, the Howard Davies commission will consider the whole issue of our hub status, aviation policy and airports and no doubt Birmingham will wish to contribute to that process.

Linda Riordan: The Caldervale line is in urgent need of new rolling stock as the current units are totally inadequate for the 1 million passengers who use Halifax station every year. Will the Minister inform the House when those passengers will get the new trains that they badly need?

Stephen Hammond: The hon. Lady knows that the northern hub package will certainly improve opportunities for the Calder valley line between Leeds and Manchester Victoria. The high-level output specification announcement confirmed the go-ahead for the Castlefield corridor scheme. She knows that the 2012 Budget set aside a package of measures to increase line speeds and look at the rolling stock.

Eric Ollerenshaw: Are there any plans in the Department to begin to look at the commercial condition and strategic future of Britain’s smaller ports, such as Fleetwood and Glasson dock in my constituency?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend knows that the Government’s national policy statement on ports, published in January, designated and underlined the importance of the contribution made by smaller ports. I was delighted to visit the national smaller ports conference in Windermere two weeks ago and to address it. It is, however, for Associated British Ports to promote the commercial opportunities at Fleetwood, rather than the Government.

Jim McGovern: First, I congratulate Dundee youth council on its “It’s no fare” campaign, which seeks to lower bus fares for young people. Will the Minister liaise with his counterpart in Holyrood in Edinburgh to ensure that apprentices and students can get to their place of work or study for the lowest price?

Norman Baker: I have a great deal of sympathy for that point of view and recognise that there is an issue with access to work for young people and students that needs to be dealt with. That is why I have been discussing the matter with the Confederation of Passenger Transport UK, which is the umbrella body for bus companies, and I am very happy to liaise with colleagues in the Scottish Government and others to try to take it forward.

Dominic Raab: For completeness, I should declare that my wife works for Google, albeit in a capacity unrelated to this question. Google, Audi, Ford and Volvo are among the firms pioneering driverless cars, which could cut road accidents by up to 90% while freeing up time that could unleash massive productivity gains. Several US states are testing the technology. What action is the Department taking to explore the viability of that innovation in this country? [R]

Stephen Hammond: The technology for driverless cars is, as my hon. Friend says, advancing very quickly. As the Secretary of State just said, our key priority is safety and I want to ensure that those systems are safe and reliable before allowing them on to UK roads. There is of course great potential for UK technology to be at the forefront of these developments and departmental officials are liaising with leading UK researchers in the field.

Alison McGovern: In June, the then rail Minister told me that the Government were
	“making progress on the Thameslink procurement”.—[Official Report, 12 June 2012; Vol. 546, c. 67WH.]
	In August,
	The Guardian
	reported that the contract for new trains would be delayed until the autumn, and it is now the autumn. The delivery of new trains for Thameslink frees up electric rolling stock to move north, but any delay puts that in jeopardy. Will the Minister meet me and Merseytravel to guarantee that we will not end up with an electrified line from Manchester to Liverpool but no electric trains?

Simon Burns: Yes. As I know the hon. Lady is aware, significant investment is being made in Thameslink—some £6 billion is being invested, £4.5 billion of which is for the infrastructure and £1.5 billion of which is for the rolling stock. I understand her concerns. My Department and I are working to ensure that the
	rolling stock is ready for the project and I would have the greatest pleasure in meeting the hon. Lady at her convenience.

Duncan Hames: Will the Minister confirm that Access for All funding will not be raided to pay compensation to franchise bidders and that the project to build lifts at Chippenham station is therefore still on track?

Norman Baker: I can confirm that the Government are fully committed to Access for All funding. It is entirely separate, and will not be “raided”—the verb used by my hon. Friend. I confirm that a further £100 million over the new control period will take even more stations up to the standard that we expect.

Brian H Donohoe: To return to the subject of the west coast main line, when the Secretary of State made a statement on Monday, I made him aware of a figure given to me by insiders in the industry that suggested a cost of at least half a billion pounds as a result of this debacle. Has any application to the Treasury for additional contingency funding been made as a result?

Patrick McLoughlin: No.

Zac Goldsmith: British pilots in my constituency are concerned that EU proposals on pilot flight time limitations will weaken the current rules and that, as a result, flying will become less safe. Instead of lowering our standards to harmonise with the EU, should not the EU be raising its standards to harmonise with ours? Failing that, will the Department at least explore with the British Air Line Pilots Association additional safety measures to cover those areas that would otherwise see standards drop?

Simon Burns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. As he will be aware, the Government place the highest priority on safety, both for passengers, and for those who fly and work on our airlines. We are playing a vigorous role in this Europe-wide initiative, and it is for the Civil Aviation Authority to lead. The Government will do nothing with which the CAA is not content, and we will continue to consider the issue as it moves forward.

Julie Hilling: As a directly operated railway, the east coast main line returned £187 million to the taxpayer last year. How much money will Virgin pay to the taxpayer during the period of extension to its west coast main line franchise?

Patrick McLoughlin: Negotiations are ongoing.

WOMEN AND EQUALITIES

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Universal Credit

William Bain: What discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on the effects on women of the introduction of universal credit.

Maria Miller: I have had many conversations with the Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, and others, regarding universal credit. Universal credit is designed to encourage people to work, and benefit women who find the existing system a barrier to work. It will help lone parents, who are mostly women, work a small number of hours through increased earnings disregards, and provide child care for the first time for those working under 16 hours.

William Bain: I welcome the Minister for Women and Equalities, and her colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant) to their new positions. [ Interruption. ] And—how could I forget?—my neighbour, the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson).
	Does the Minister accept that work needs to pay for all women, so how will she ensure that, when universal credit is introduced next year, 1 million lone parents do not lose out—as Gingerbread has suggested—on the equivalent of two-thirds of the unintended increase in the tax allowance, taking home only £70 for every £1,000 increase in the allowance, compared with £200?

Maria Miller: As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree, one of the best ways we can support lone parents to get out of poverty is to help them into work. That is exactly what universal credit is trying to do—to ensure that lone parents can stay close to the labour market and, for the first time, get child care support if they work under 16 hours a week.

Yvette Cooper: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, and Minister for Women and Equalities, on her double promotion. I hope that she and her new team will enjoy the work on women and equalities.
	Despite the many good intentions behind universal credit, the detail could prove worrying, particularly in cases of domestic violence. Ditching the principle that payments go to the main carer and having just a single payment to the household could make things harder in cases of financial coercion. In addition, the way that housing payments are delivered could make it difficult for refuges, which fear that they could lose around 60% of their funding. It looks as though the detail of universal credit has been designed without any consideration for those vulnerable women. Will the Minister remedy that and ensure that the Government Equalities Offices looks urgently at the matter, and will she discuss the issue with her colleagues to ensure that the regulations are right?

Maria Miller: The right hon. Lady is right to say that the detail on universal credit is vital, and she will be reassured that we have already looked at the issue in detail. We have worked with women’s aid organisations to ensure that refuges have special treatment in that respect, and we have retained powers to ensure, if absolutely necessary, that payments can be split between men and women if domestic violence is in play.

Labour Market Trends (Black and Minority Ethnic Communities)

Heidi Alexander: What recent assessment she has made of the effects of recent labour market trends on black and minority ethnic communities.

Helen Grant: Tackling unemployment is a priority for this Government. Our approach is to support according to individual need rather than to segregate according to ethnic group. On the matter of need, Mr Speaker, would you allow me to pay tribute to the fact that today is anti-slavery day?

Heidi Alexander: Yesterday, the TUC published a report that showed that the unemployment rate among young black men stands at 50%, and that that group has experienced the sharpest rise in unemployment since the Minister’s Government came to power. Does she recognise the devastating impact that her Government’s failure to get the economy moving is having on the lives of those young men? What specific action will she take to tackle the problem?

Helen Grant: I do not accept the accuracy of the figures the hon. Lady mentions, but I accept that the figures on young black men and employment are bad, and that they need to improve. A number of the figures given fail to classify those in full-time education, but it would be wrong to assume that someone needs additional support simply because of the colour of their skin. Notwithstanding that, the Government are giving a range of tailored support, through Jobcentre Plus, the fantastic Work programme, the Youth Contract and all our measures to get Britain working. We should not stereotype people according to ethnic groups—everyone needs help.

Peter Bottomley: I welcome my hon. Friend to her responsibilities. As part of the task of ensuring that the colour of someone’s skin is no more important than the colour of their eyes or hair, will she encourage her colleagues in the Government to promote vocational qualifications and achievements in education, so that people can be chosen on their merit and qualities rather than be disqualified because of prejudice or stereotypes?

Helen Grant: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The one-size-fits-all approach to unemployment has clearly failed. We need local providers to deliver good, innovative local services. We should be pleased that, in 2010-11, the highest number of black and minority ethnic apprentices started their training. Michael Gove’s reforms will be key to that, and I very much look forward to seeing them coming to fruition.

Mr Speaker: I am sure the Minister was referring to the Secretary of State for Education.

Tax and Benefits

Chris Ruane: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the effects of tax and benefit changes on women and their families.

Jo Swinson: I have had conversations with my ministerial colleagues on a range of issues. This Government are supporting women and their families, for example by extending child care support through universal credit, and by lifting 2 million of the lowest-paid workers out of income tax altogether—six out of 10 of whom are women.

Chris Ruane: Eighty per cent. of the gainers from the cut in the 50% tax rate are men. According to House of Commons research, 75% of the losers from tax and benefit changes are women. Does one nation Toryism include women?

Jo Swinson: I am not convinced that I am the best-placed person to talk about one nation Toryism, but I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the cost of the cut to the top rate of tax is dwarfed by the large amount of money that we are putting in to the tax cut for people on low incomes. Sixty per cent. of gainers from that are women.

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister has interpreted the question liberally and democratically, as one might have expected.

Entrepreneurship

Amber Rudd: What steps she is taking to encourage more women to become entrepreneurs.

Maria Miller: With permission, Mr Speaker, I shall answer questions 4 and 9 together. The majority women-led small and medium-sized enterprises already—

Mr Speaker: Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Lady, but we cannot have Ministers grouping questions on the hoof. There was no advanced notice of this intended grouping, and therefore, I am afraid it does not apply. If a mess of the matter was made, that is regrettable, but that is the Minister’s responsibility, not mine.

Maria Miller: Thank you for that guidance, Mr Speaker.
	The majority of women-led SMEs already contribute about £50 billion annually to the UK economy. We are building on that by promoting an entrepreneurial culture in schools and by identifying female role models and mentors. We also have a range of business support and access-to-finance schemes open to all entrepreneurs, male and female.

Amber Rudd: I have recently volunteered to be a mentor for the new enterprise allowance locally, although, curiously, I have not been appointed a mentee yet—I am sure that will be coming. Will the Minister join me in urging women with business experience, including Members of Parliament, to become a mentor and help other women become entrepreneurs?

Maria Miller: I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend does in her constituency to support businesses. She is absolutely right that mentoring is a vital part of helping more women get involved in business.
	The Home Secretary announced funding of £600,000 towards to the Get Mentoring initiative last year, and to date more than 10,000 volunteer mentors have been trained, 42% of whom are female, and I announced a further £100,000 for this initiative last month.

Luciana Berger: I recently attended a fantastic event in Liverpool organised by the Women’s Organisation specifically on how women could access finance. I heard at first hand the challenges that many women face when they try build their businesses. Is the Minister concerned that, according to the Department for Work and Pensions, last year just 17% of people benefiting from a new enterprise allowance scheme were women? Does she agree that this flagship policy is failing properly to support women’s entrepreneurship?

Maria Miller: I am sure that the hon. Lady knows that earlier this month changes were announced to the new enterprise allowance scheme, and there is now day-one access for people on jobseeker’s allowance, which will open it up to more people. Also, we are already doing extensive work on access to finance, and will be publishing our response shortly.

Mark Spencer: Will the Minister commit to liaising with her colleagues in the Department for Education to encourage young girls to take subjects such as business studies and economics?

Maria Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that schools have an important role to play here, although I stress that it is not just about studying business studies or economics. Businesses want to ensure that the young people they are employing have the literacy and numeracy skills needed in a successful business today. I applaud the work of the Secretary of State for Education on his work in this area.

Jim Shannon: A recent study in Northern Ireland showed that 80% of women were in part-time work, and I understand that the figures on the UK mainland are similar. Does the Minister agree that we need a strategy that allows women to fulfil their potential, when they desire it, instead of being seemingly pigeonholed into a part-time working pattern?

Maria Miller: The important thing is that women and parents are able to balance their work and family lives. Our work on the modernisation of the workplace is important to that. I also reiterate my comments about universal credit and the ability of women to access child care support when they are working shorter hours. Some £300 million is being invested in that. That is something that was not forthcoming under a Labour Government.

Violence against Women

Wayne David: What assessment she has made of the effects of Government policies on efforts to tackle violence against women.

Jeremy Browne: The Government’s approach to tackling violence is set out in our strategy to end violence against women
	and girls and the supporting action plan. We monitor the delivery of the strategy and the impact of wider Government policies through regular cross-Government delivery boards, stakeholder meetings and inter-ministerial groups.

Wayne David: The Minister will be aware that earlier this year Professor Walby prepared a report showing that no fewer than 230 women every single day were denied refuge accommodation through lack of space. Has his Department made an assessment of that report?

Jeremy Browne: The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important issue, because refuges can play a key role in helping women who have been the victims of domestic violence, as I have seen in my constituency. That is the case across the country, as well, so I shall certainly consider any recommendations that we can incorporate further to improve our response to this terrible crime.

Michael Fabricant: I am not keen on witch hunts or anything like that, but what has happened with Jimmy Savile has shocked everyone. What can the Minister say about the role of the Government in protecting young children and vulnerable people, and what lessons can be learned from the whole Jimmy Savile experience?

Jeremy Browne: I am sure that my hon. Friend speaks for the whole House about the shock and revulsion felt at the allegations made against Jimmy Savile. It increasingly appears that a culture of abuse took place in the past and in my cases—it is important to remember—continues to take place. We need to learn lessons from this specific case and be vigilant in understanding the threat that exists in our communities here and now.

Kate Green: Today is anti-slavery day. Figures show an increase in reported cases of human trafficking, but we all feel that that is still the tip of a terrible iceberg that, of course, includes women and children being trafficked into prostitution. Given that tackling these terrible cross-border crimes relies on things such as co-operation with Europol, sharing data, criminal records and expertise, and the European arrest warrant, how on anti-slavery day do Ministers justify opting out of all those things?

Jeremy Browne: I strongly endorse the hon. Lady’s starting observation about what a terrible crime human trafficking is, and it is our intention as a Government to be vigilant in tackling it more effectively. That is why we are creating the National Crime Agency, which will come into effect this time next year, and the issue is already a priority for the Serious Organised Crime Agency. It is important that we co-operate with countries across Europe—and, for that matter, further afield—to ensure that we have the highest level of resilience at our borders, but also before people get to that point.

Public Company Boards

Anne McIntosh: What steps she is taking to increase the number of women in public company boardrooms; and if she will make a statement.

Jo Swinson: The Government are working to implement a voluntary and business-led approach. We are supporting the excellent work of Lord Davies, which has resulted in an unprecedented increase in the number of women on boards. We are also putting in place a range of measures to ensure equal opportunities for women in the workplace, including help with child care, extending flexible working and introducing a new system of flexible parental leave.

Anne McIntosh: Although those measures are undoubtedly welcome, can the Minister explain why we fall so woefully short of our competitors in other European countries and elsewhere? Will she reflect on how many new members of boards will be appointed as a result of those measures, bearing in mind that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) said, they should be appointed on the basis of merit and ability?

Jo Swinson: The Government’s approach is showing that encouraging businesses to take the issue seriously is paying dividends. Indeed, more than a third of new appointments to boards over the last 12 months have been women. There is certainly more to do, but that shows that the approach we are taking is the right one. In fact, we are doing well on this matter compared with many other countries. They have been looking at our approach in the Lord Davies review, often to see how they might be able to take on board some of the best practice that we have already developed, and our officials have been sharing that with officials in other countries.

Valerie Vaz: The Minister is incorrect: this 1% rate of progress means that the girls are not yet born who will benefit from it. Will she look at the Australian model—both at what the Australian Prime Minister has said and at the federal Government target of 40% men, 40% women and 20% of either gender?

Jo Swinson: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I certainly think that many across the House would do well to look at what the Australian Prime Minister says and at her rather excellent recent speech on the issue of equality. I disagree that quotas are the right way to proceed, and I do not recognise the figure of 1% that she mentioned. The percentage of women on boards has increased to 17% from 12% since the election, and as I have said, a third of new appointments in the last year have been women.

Andrea Leadsom: May I say what a brilliant Women and Equalities Front-Bench team we have now? I really think that the women of this country can take heart from that. Will my hon. Friend continue to hold the line against the EU’s determination to introduce a quota of 40% of women on boards? We simply cannot have quotas for women; they have got to get there under their own steam.

Jo Swinson: I can certainly give that reassurance. The approach that we are taking through the Lord Davies review—a target of 25% on boards by 2015—is showing itself to be successful. In fact, we are ahead of schedule
	in hitting that target. Our approach is showing itself to be successful and the right one to take, and we will resist the EU calls for quotas.

Alison Seabeck: The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) talked about the Front-Bench team today, but there are only four women in the Cabinet and 23 across Government. Does the Minister accept that the private companies out there on whose boards we want to see more women will not see a Government who are leading by example? It is simply not good enough.

Jo Swinson: Clearly a range of new women joined the Government in the latest reshuffle. There is a wealth of talent among the women MPs on the coalition Benches, and I am sure that in future that will result in additional women joining the Government.

Mr Speaker: In the spirit of equality, I certainly would not wish to exclude the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). Let us hear from him.

Philip Davies: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Rather than having politically correct targets, is it not better for companies in the private sector to decide for themselves who are the right people to be on their boards, irrespective of gender, race or religion? Should not all such appointments be made on merit, rather than trying to meet the politically correct targets that the Minister has referred to?

Jo Swinson: It is always a delight to hear from my hon. Friend. He perhaps does not fully recognise the benefits that businesses gain from having more diversity on their boards. The fact that fewer than one in five board members are women shows that there is a wide talent pool out there that is not being drawn upon; businesses could benefit hugely from ensuring that those talents are used in their boardrooms.

Energy Tariffs

Caroline Flint: (Urgent Question): Yesterday, the Prime Minister threw energy policy into confusion, causing chaos—

Mr Speaker: Order. At this stage, all that the right hon. Lady needs to do is to ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the matter.

Caroline Flint: I ask the Secretary of State to make a statement on the matter.

John Hayes: Rising energy prices are a cause for concern in these difficult times, particularly for those vulnerable consumers who struggle to meet their bills. I am profoundly concerned and disappointed to hear of the recent energy price rises, and I will be seeking to discuss them with the relevant suppliers as a matter of urgency.
	My Department has already taken a number of different actions to assist consumers with their bills. Programmes such as the carbon emissions reduction target, Warm Front, the green deal and the energy company obligation will make homes more energy efficient. In addition, the warm home discount will provide no less than £1.1 billion of support up to 2015 to help 2 million low-income and vulnerable households annually.
	Following the Prime Minister’s announcement yesterday, I am pleased to confirm that we will be bringing forward legislation to help energy consumers to get the best deal. We have already regulated, we have plans to improve competition and simplify tariffs in the retail market process, and we will improve liquidity and competition in the wholesale market, through the Energy Bill, in weeks rather than months. A number of options are being considered. For example, the voluntary agreement with energy suppliers announced in April secured a number of measures which will be evaluated to see whether we should make the legislation binding. This is a complicated area, and we will have discussions with the industry, consumer groups and the regulator in order to work through the detail.

Caroline Flint: As I was saying, the Prime Minister threw energy policy into confusion yesterday, causing chaos in the energy industry and leaving his own Ministers at a loss over what Government energy policy actually is. It is no wonder that the Secretary of State has avoided coming to the House today to explain a policy that he knew nothing about until yesterday.
	As energy bills have gone up by over £200 in the last two years, the public deserve an answer. Switching has fallen to its lowest level ever, and in recent days three of the big energy companies have announced another round of price hikes this winter, so it was not surprising that there was a great deal of interest when the Prime Minister told the House yesterday that
	“we will be legislating so that energy companies have to give the lowest tariff to their customers”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 316.]
	But now it appears that energy companies will not be forced to put all customers on cheaper tariffs after all.
	Let me ask the Minister three straightforward questions. First, did he know about the announcement before it was made yesterday, or was the Prime Minister making it up as he went along? Secondly, can he confirm today whether the Government will be legislating to force the energy companies to put all their customers on the cheapest tariff—not through a voluntary agreement or through sending a letter once a year, but, as the Prime Minister said, legislating to make the energy companies put all their customers on the lowest tariff? Is that their policy or not? Thirdly, if that is their policy, will the Minister explain how it will work and when it will be implemented? If not, will he explain what the Prime Minister meant and tell us when he will return to the House to put the record straight?
	We all mis-speak from time to time, and the Prime Minister was under a lot of pressure yesterday, but for the Government to spend a day pretending to have a policy that they have no intention of implementing is no way to run the country. It is like something out of “The Thick Of It”. In the past year, I have made the case for a radical reform of Britain’s energy market. The millions of families and pensioners who are worried about how they will heat their homes deserve better than policy made on the hoof, and the House needs answers.

John Hayes: You know, Mr Speaker, that it is not my habit to be excessively partisan in this House, and the British people will judge how to define “excessive” in the light of the fact that in 13 years the Labour party did so little to plan for our energy future. The right hon. Lady, who was a Minister when that party was in government, dithered and delayed and deferred key decisions about energy policy and investment, which has left us in the situation we face today. It is not so with this Government, who will bring forward the Energy Bill to reform markets, increase competition and secure investment, which should have been done years ago.
	Let me answer the right hon. Lady’s questions very directly. She asked whether I knew what the Prime Minister was considering. Of course we understand what the Prime Minister was considering, as we have been debating and discussing the provisions of the Energy Bill for months. The draft Bill has been carefully scrutinised by the Select Committee—the excellent Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change, if I may say so—while the Opposition have made their views known, the industry is in constant dialogue with the Government on these matters and consumer groups are regularly consulted, so of course all these matters have been discussed and considered over the months.
	With an alarming misunderstanding—or, at least a supposed misunderstanding—of parliamentary process, the right hon. Lady then asked how this policy would work and how would it be implemented. She will know that this Government take the Energy Bill so seriously that we are determined that it should have proper scrutiny in this House. During that scrutiny, we will of course discuss how these things will work and how they will be implemented. That is a fundamental part of the process by which legislation passes through this Parliament.
	The right hon. Lady asked for an affirmation of our determination to tackle the issue of tariffs. Had she had the good fortune to be at the Conservative party conference, she would have heard me on a number of occasions
	articulating, with some style, the case for lower tariffs as a means of reducing demand and placing an emphasis on demand- side measures that the previous Government failed to do for almost their entire stewardship of the energy brief.
	The answer is yes, we will use the Energy Bill to get people lower tariffs. There are, of course, different options to be considered in that process, but those options will be discussed with the industry and with consumer groups. More than that, they will be effective in a way for which only this Government—and I am bound to say, this Minister—are renowned. If I may say so, I have brought fresh energy to this brief, and I am determined that this Bill will be a landmark piece of legislation in the interests of the British people, delivering lower energy prices for businesses and households across the country.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A sizeable number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye, and I am keen to accommodate that interest. I remind the House, however, that business questions are to follow and that thereafter there are to be two relatively well subscribed debates to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee. Brevity is therefore of the essence from Back-Bench and Front-Bench Members alike. I trust that the Minister of State, who has just addressed the House with the eloquence of Demosthenes, will tailor the length of his responses accordingly.

Tony Baldry: Does this not turn on a very short compass? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the difference is this that he intends within 13 weeks to bring forward legislation to ensure that consumers have the lowest possible electricity prices, whereas the Opposition had 13 years in government in which they did absolutely nothing to help consumers with electricity prices?

John Hayes: Alacrity and the defence of the common good lie at the heart of all I do.

Meg Hillier: If you were to wander through the corridors of the big six energy companies today, Mr. Speaker, you would hear the sound of low tariffs being ripped up and thrown in the bin. How, through legislation, can the Minister seriously make it an option for the lowest tariff offered to be low and affordable, rather than being set by the energy companies to suit their profit margins?

John Hayes: The hon. Lady is right—as she so often is, by the way—to suggest that we need a robust relationship with the energy companies. Of course they are partners in this process, but none the less we will take the necessary steps to ensure that the people get the best possible deal, for we are the people’s party and the people’s Government.

Andrew Percy: Having just experienced the horrors of trying to switch tariffs myself, I know that a lot more work still needs to be done to make it much easier. I commend North Lincolnshire
	council, which is looking at having its front-line staff in the Link centres trained to advise people on how to switch, but what we really need is for the energy companies to take that on board and offer the training that is necessary.

John Hayes: That is an excellent point. I will happily engage with my hon. Friend and his local district council. He is right: clarity and explicability are important, and I do not think that they have always been as good as they might have been in the past.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I am hoping to move on to the next business at 11 o’clock.

Alan Whitehead: These proposals did not feature anywhere in the draft Energy Bill, the White Paper, the technical updates or the impact assessments, so I assume that DECC staff have been working hard on the new idea this morning. Can the Minister guarantee that when he has worked out how to do this, it will not impede the progress of the Energy Bill and its delivery to the House?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is a great expert on these matters, and he is a member of the Select Committee that scrutinised the Bill so carefully. One of the first things that I did when I became the Energy Minister was to meet with the Chairman of that Committee to consider the suggestions that it had made about the Bill. I do not think that that will slow things down, but it will certainly ensure that we get things right. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s continuing diligence in these matters.

Andrew George: I regret the fact that my hon. Friend has had this pit dug for him. Do I understand from his reply to the urgent question that this is not a firm policy proposal, but merely an item that is currently under consideration—if I may use his own language?

John Hayes: I think that the Prime Minister was crystal clear yesterday. [Laughter.] The Opposition are often behind the curve. We believed in one nation when they had not heard of Disraeli. The truth is that the Prime Minister was very clear. This is a policy intent, which will be delivered through the necessary mechanisms. Luckily, the Energy Bill is to be presented to the House, and that will allow proper scrutiny and consideration by Opposition Members and others.

Clive Efford: Will the Minister arrange for the impact assessment of the Prime Minister’s announcement to be placed in the Library, so that we can all have a look at it?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is an experienced Member of the House. When the proposals are presented, of course there will be an impact assessment.

Henry Smith: This morning my constituent Anthony Noel contacted me to say that his energy bills had risen by more than 11% in the last year, so I welcome the remarks made by the Prime Minister
	yesterday. I understand that the Government will be inviting the six main energy companies to engage in a round-table discussion of the policy. Can the Minister confirm that?

John Hayes: The dialogue with the energy companies is important to us, so yes, we will be doing that.

Dave Watts: At a time when families are struggling to pay their fuel bills and fuel companies are making billions of pounds of profit, why does the Minister not stop coming forward with gimmicks, and introduce effective regulation that will control those companies?

John Hayes: Regulation is important. I do not want to be ungenerous—still less unkind—but it must be said that the last Government had 13 years in which to do something about this. I have been in the job for a matter of days, and we are getting on with it.

Tobias Ellwood: Does the Minister agree that although the shadow Minister speaks of an energy policy, the previous Government simply did not have one? They took none of the big decisions, such as on new nuclear build, which is why we are over-reliant on expensive imports today.

John Hayes: Let me be even more generous. There is always a tension involved in taking big strategic decisions in a democratic polity, because of the imperatives that we face day to day, week to week. However, that cannot legitimise a failure to take decisions that were in the national interest and for the common good. Those strategic decisions, given their scale and time scale, need to be framed around meaningful legislation that establishes a robust relationship between those with commercial interests and those missioned, as we are, to defend the national interest. That is precisely what we will do, in weeks not months, and at its heart will be a landmark piece of legislation which I will guide through this House.

Christopher Leslie: We all know that the Minister is eloquent in the art of obfuscation, but will he set aside the flim-flam just for the moment and answer a straightforward question: was he aware that the Prime Minister was going to make this announcement—yes or no?

John Hayes: The Prime Minister, as the hon. Gentleman knows, comes to this House weekly to be scrutinised by this House. Does he give me notice of every answer and does he get notice of every question? Of course the answer is no. If the hon. Gentleman is asking me whether we were considering these matters—whether I was considering them and whether the Secretary of State was considering them—and whether they were being debated as part of the consideration of the Energy Bill following the scrutiny by the Select Committee and others, the answer is a definitive yes.

Michael Crockart: In meetings I have had this week, major green investors were already complaining about perceived political noise around green
	investment. Does the Minister agree that if uncertainty is the enemy of investment, surprises such as yesterday’s are even more unhelpful?

John Hayes: The fundamental objective of the strategy I outlined is to bring clarity. Clarity is the prerequisite of certainty, certainty is the prerequisite of confidence and confidence is the prerequisite of investment. That, in a nutshell, is where the failure of the previous Administration lies.

Ian Lavery: As this moment in time, 80% of people are paying too much for their energy because of confusion and unfair tariffs. Last year alone, 70 more tariffs were introduced, making a total of more than 400. What are the Government actually doing to make things more transparent for consumers?

John Hayes: As I mentioned, transparency and what I described as accessibility or explicability are crucial—the hon. Gentleman is right about that. People need to know how they can get the best deals. We have done a lot of work on that, but we need to do a lot more. We need a simplification of the process, and that has been debated in this House for a considerable time. He makes a good point, which was also made earlier, and we will be drawing it to the close attention of the energy companies and considering it as we develop our own thinking.

Andrew Stephenson: While many households in Pendle are worried about being able to afford their energy bills this winter, millions of pounds available through the Government’s Warm Front scheme go unclaimed. The same applies for the warm home discount, which, as the Minister said, alone represents more than £1.1 billion of support for the poorest households. If these proposals to give people the lowest energy tariff are going to be done through people’s energy bills, may I ask that we take the opportunity also to improve the information contained in those bills about those two important schemes?

John Hayes: My hon. Friend will know that one of the features of the energy marketplace in recent years has been a concentration of the number of companies involved. That was not predicted at the time of privatisation; people expected a more plural market, and the competition and downward price pressure that that brings. While the number of companies has shrunk, the number of tariffs has simultaneously grown, by, I understand, something like four-hundredfold. That is not sensible. Whatever the intention, it is leading to a degree of confusion which I think is unhelpful. Better information on bills and a simplification of tariffs, targeted in a way that allows people to get the best possible arrangement, are an absolute priority.

Ann McKechin: Many of my constituents have no access to broadband, particularly those who are elderly, and many pay by pre-payment cards. Will the Minister be the people’s champion today by guaranteeing that those people will have the lowest tariff?

John Hayes: Yes, the answer to that question is that we need to do that in a range of ways. Sometimes the mechanisms used do not reach the very people whom
	one wants to help most. I do believe in the redistribution of advantage; perhaps in that sense I take a rather more forward position than the Labour party.

Cathy Jamieson: The Minister has said that there are more than 400 tariffs at the moment. How many will there be after he legislates?

John Hayes: Considerably fewer than there are now.

David Winnick: In the real world, does the Minister realise that millions of people on modest incomes fear the coming winter because of the huge increases in energy prices that have occurred and will continue to occur? When are the Government going to take a hold of these privatised energy companies, which pay their leading personnel very high salaries, make huge profits and act as a cartel?

John Hayes: As someone who comes from as modest a background as anyone in this House and is committed to social mobility, I could hardly not be aware of that.

David Hanson: Could the Minister confirm whether he or any other Minister in his Department discussed the Prime Minister’s announcement with any energy company, specifically Scottish Power in my constituency, prior to the announcement yesterday?

John Hayes: I have said that we have an ongoing dialogue with all the energy companies. In the short time that I have been the Minister, I have clearly been involved in that dialogue. I have met representatives of some of the companies several times already. That is part of the business of being in government, as the right hon. Gentleman knows—I recall that he was a very distinguished Minister in the Home Office. The discussion about tariffs is, of course, a core part of that dialogue. I have, even in the short time that I have been the Minister, come to the conclusion that demand management has not been given sufficient attention in the past and now needs to be a crucial part of our strategy, and tariffs are central to that.

Nick Smith: The Minister has shown some chutzpah, if not modesty, today, but is it true that the Department of Energy and Climate Change advised the Prime Minister against this policy?

John Hayes: DECC has a wonderful relationship with our other partners in government—of course that includes the Treasury and No. 10. I say, with appropriate modesty, that that relationship has improved still further since my arrival.

Chris Williamson: The Prime Minister was very explicit in response to my question yesterday. If the Government do not follow through on his announcement, will the Minister ask the Prime Minister to come back to the House to apologise for raising people’s expectations only for them to be dashed at the last minute?

John Hayes: Let me repeat what I said earlier, because amplification is necessary, given the hon. Gentleman’s question—I note that he was the person who raised this matter with the Prime Minister yesterday. We want to use the Energy Bill to get people the lowest tariffs—it is as plain as that.

Mark Durkan: It is right to say that the strategy of having no strategy cannot go on, but are pop-up policies either workable or worthy as an answer?

John Hayes: The development of the strategy is challenging. Putting aside what can sometimes be excessively political partisan banter, the Government and the Opposition know that it is essential to put in place a strategy that works. We are planning for a period of between 20 and 60 years, depending on how we measure the lifetime of the types of different generating resource in which we are looking to encourage investment. The issue requires a large degree of consensus across this House, and I hope that I will be able to work to deliver that, in order to ensure that the strategy that the hon. Gentleman describes is meaningful. That is a challenge, but it is one that we must meet, in the national interest.

Derek Twigg: I think that the Minister is on record as saying that he was not informed about this. He said earlier that he will seek to have a meeting with the energy companies to talk about the price rises—will he explain that? Does it mean that he has not had a meeting previously? Was he not informed by the energy companies about the price rises? If he was not, that would be astounding.

John Hayes: Again, the hon. Gentleman will know, because of his experience in the House, that when British Gas announced a price rise, as the first company to do so, we of course had a discussion with the company. I had discussions with British Gas at the weekend, and I spoke to other energy companies as well. Of course that dialogue takes place, because I want to be clear about the reasons for these rises. International gas prices comprise a significant reason for them, but I think it is absolutely right that we are robust in our dealings with energy companies; this needs to be a mature and professional relationship. That dialogue will never be better than it has been since I got here, but I tell hon. Members that it will take place on terms defined by the people’s interests and not the interests of any particular commercial organisation.

William Bain: While the Government’s policy descends into farce and shambles, 5 million people are being ripped off daily by the big six companies. Can the Minister tell us finally how many people will be on the lowest possible tariff as a result of his Energy Bill?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman knows that the proposals I have described today will form part of a Bill. That Bill will be debated and scrutinised by this House, and it would be impertinent of me to anticipate how that Bill will end its passage through this House, because the party of which he is a member will of course table amendments and make its case, and the details of that
	are at this stage unknown. I will say, however, that our policy intent, articulated by the Prime Minister with, to be frank, a determination not seen when the Labour party was in government, is that people should pay less for their energy through the reform of tariffs. I cannot be plainer than that.

Seema Malhotra: Analysis on “Newsnight” last night suggested that the policy as announced by the Prime Minister could well reduce competition and increase prices. Was the programme right to raise those concerns?

John Hayes: I do not believe so. I think we can square the circle of increasing competition, which I hope will encourage downward pressure on prices, but at the same time getting the investment we need in energy infrastructure. I described that as a significant challenge—the whole House knows that it is—but I think it can be achieved if we get energy market reform right.

Anne McGuire: I wonder, in view of the Minister’s linguistic acrobatics today, whether he can give us a little hint about how he will square that circle?

John Hayes: I add acrobatic skills to the many qualities that have been ascribed to me by this House. I do not think it is a question of linguistic acrobatics; I think it is a question of getting a set of policies in place that work for Britain. I am sorry to have to say this again, but the previous Government palpably, singularly, failed to plan for our energy future. This Government will not make the same mistake. Tariffs are a part of that and prices are critical, and we will act in weeks rather than months.

Alex Cunningham: Is it the Government’s intention to stop energy companies offering predatory deals, usually only over the internet, to just some customers at the expense of the majority of others, who do not switch as often?

John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman will have heard what I said earlier about the number of companies declining but the number of tariffs increasing. That has caused confusion, at the very least, and part of the process needs to be about greater clarity and explicability, very much in the terms he describes.

Mark Lazarowicz: To make things as clear as possible, is it the Government’s intention to bring forward legislation specifically to put all customers on the lowest tariff? A yes or no answer will be sufficient.

John Hayes: A yes or no answer would be insufficient to deal with the hon. Gentleman’s question—indeed, it would be almost an insult to him to reduce my answer to that level. Let me be plain, though: the Energy Bill will be used, as the Prime Minister said, as a vehicle to get people the lowest tariffs. We will look closely at the best means of doing that over the coming days and weeks, and the hon. Gentleman will be as excited as the rest of the House when those proposals are published.

Mr Speaker: I am most grateful to the Minister of State.

Hon. Members: More!

Mr Speaker: I think it is a fair summary to say that the House has enjoyed the scrutiny process over the past half hour.

Business of the House

Angela Eagle: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Andrew Lansley: Before I turn to the future business of the House, may I take the opportunity to say, on behalf of the House, with what sadness we learned of the loss of two of our colleagues. We continue to send our sympathies and condolences to their families and friends. Malcolm Wicks was an immensely liked and respected Member of the House, who served as Chairman of the Education Committee before performing very distinguished service in government. Sir Stuart Bell, also a much valued colleague, served this House in many capacities over a number of years, not least as Chairman of the Finance and Services Committee and a member of the House of Commons Commission. Both colleagues will be sorely missed.
	The business for next week is as follows:
	Monday 22 October—General debate on Hillsborough. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister plans to make a statement on the EU Council.
	Tuesday 23 October—Motion to approve a financial resolution relating to an HGV Road User Levy Bill, followed by motion to approve a money resolution on the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Bill.
	Wednesday 24 October—Opposition Day [7th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on the police. The debate will arise on an Opposition motion.
	Thursday 25 October—Presentation of a report by the International Development Select Committee: DFID’s work in Afghanistan. This is expected to last 20 minutes. It will be followed by a debate on a motion relating to the badger cull. The subject for this debate has been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 26 October—Private Members’ Bills.
	The provisional business for the week commencing 29 October will include:
	Monday 29 October—Second Reading of the Public Service Pensions Bill.
	Tuesday 30 October—Second Reading of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill.
	Wednesday 31 October—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Local Government Finance Bill, followed by motion to approve European documents relating to EU budget simplification and the multi-annual financial framework.
	Thursday 1 November—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.
	Friday 2 November—Private Members’ Bills.
	I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 22 and 25 October and 1 November will be:
	Monday 22 October—A debate on the e-petition relating to children’s cardiac surgery at the East Midlands congenital heart centre at Glenfield.
	Thursday 25 October—A debate on the Work and Pensions Select Committee report on Government support towards the additional living costs of working-age disabled people.
	Thursday 1 November—A debate on the Transport Select Committee report on air travel organisers’ licensing reform, followed by a debate on the Transport Select Committee report on flight time limitations.
	Colleagues will also wish to know that, subject to the progress of business, the House will rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 20 December 2012 and return on Monday 7 January 2013. We will rise for the February recess on Thursday 14 February 2013 and return on Monday 25 February 2013. The House will rise for the Easter recess on Tuesday 26 March 2013 and return on Monday 15 April 2013. We will rise for the Whitsun recess on Tuesday 21 May 2013 and return on Monday 3 June 2013. The House will rise for the summer recess on Thursday 18 July 2013 and return on Monday 2 September 2013—I can see that this is the way to attract the attention of the House, Mr Speaker. The House will rise for the conference recess on Friday 13 September 2013 and return on Tuesday 8 October 2013. The House will rise for the November recess on Tuesday 12 November and return on Monday 18 November. Finally, the House will rise for the Christmas recess on Thursday 19 December 2013 and return on Monday 6 January 2014.
	To remind themselves, colleagues may pick up a handy pocket calendar from the Vote Office.

Angela Eagle: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement and for announcing the recess dates for the forthcoming year, which is always very convenient for Members of the House.
	I thank the Leader of the House and join him in paying tribute to my two colleagues who recently passed away. Malcolm Wicks was elected to Parliament at the same time as me, in 1992, and had a distinguished career in government; he was also a deep thinker on family policy. Sir Stuart Bell was a Member of this House for almost 30 years, and during his long career he served with distinction, not least on the House of Commons Commission for more than a decade. They will both be sorely missed.
	May I also thank the Attorney-General for his statement this week on Hillsborough and for producing clarity ahead of next week’s debate? It has been welcomed by the families and warmly welcomed on both sides of the House.
	Yesterday’s Order Paper stated that there would be questions to the Prime Minister at noon. It is not explicit, I admit, but the assumption under which Members have always operated on such occasions is that the Prime Minister will actually answer the questions he is asked; he cannot simply throw his toys out of the pram and refuse to answer a question from an hon. Member. But that is exactly what he did yesterday, rather conveniently. Therefore, will the Leader of the House have a go at answering the questions that the Prime Minister refused to address: why did we discover this week that secret correspondence between the Prime Minister, Rebekah Brooks and Andy Coulson was not disclosed to the Leveson inquiry, and will the Prime Minister now surrender all that material to the inquiry that, after all, he set up?
	Following the utter chaos caused by the Prime Minister making energy policy on the hoof during yesterday’s Prime Minister’s questions, we had hoped that our urgent question this morning would improve clarity and restore some sense to the situation amid soaring energy bills. Given that it so obviously did not and that the Government’s policy is now a shambles, may we have a further statement so that we can establish what on earth the Government’s policy on low-energy tariffs now is?
	In his botched reshuffle, the Prime Minister appointed the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke) as a roving Minister. It appears that the Education Secretary also considers himself to be a roving Minister, as he has announced that he would vote to leave the European Union in a referendum. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] He is obviously gathering support from the Conservative Back Benches, perhaps for a leadership bid. It was then reported that a third of Cabinet members agree with him, so will the Leader of the House tell us whether he is one of them? May we have a debate on European policy following the European summit, rather than just a statement, to give Conservative Cabinet Ministers who want to sound off a forum in which to do so? They do not need to brief the media in secret; let them come to the House and tell us what they really think.
	On Tuesday I received an invitation from the Bruges Group to a dinner marking the 20th anniversary of the Maastricht rebellion. It promised that there would be
	“a rebel at every table”.
	Sadly, diary commitments mean I am unable to attend what promises to be a fascinating occasion. Will the Leader of the House say whether the Work and Pensions Secretary—he was, after all, one of John Major’s backstabbers—will be attending to offer career advice to current Back-Bench Europe rebels?
	The war in the Congo is the world’s deadliest conflict since the second world war. It is estimated that as many as 5 million people have died during the conflict—half of them children—from war, disease or famine. According to a United Nations report published this week, the Rwandan Defence Minister is effectively commanding a rebellion in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. On his last day in office, the previous International Development Secretary inexplicably reinstated aid to Rwanda despite the US, the EU and other major donors maintaining their suspension. May we therefore have an urgent statement from the current International Development Secretary to respond to the serious allegations being made about the case?
	As the Leader of the House has announced, next week there will be an Opposition day debate on the police. There is a long-standing convention that Chief Whips should be seen but not heard. The current Government Chief Whip, who inexplicably is not in his place, would be well advised to observe that convention outside the House as well. We know the police’s account: they report that the Chief Whip said that police officers were “plebs” who should “know their place”—I have missed out the expletives. The Chief Whip keeps changing his story. Had he had the courtesy to the House to attend today, I would have said that he should come to the Dispatch Box and tell the House what he actually said, but perhaps he is too busy repairing relations with Conservative Back Benchers to bother attending business questions.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her opening remarks. With regard to her questions, I am not sure that she was listening to the Prime Minister yesterday, not least in relation to his clear and robust answer on our support to Rwanda and the reasons it is being given. He was absolutely clear that we are making clear to the Rwandan Government our opposition to any intervention on their part in the Congo. It is always tempting not to reply to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), but let me be absolutely clear that the Prime Minister gave the Leveson inquiry all the information requested.
	The shadow Leader of the House was sitting in the Chamber this morning when the urgent question received the reply that was required, so her remarks are astonishing. It was made very clear, and more than once, as the Prime Minister said, that we will bring forward the energy Bill shortly and legislate so that people get the best possible tariff. That is exactly what the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), said and what the Prime Minister said yesterday.
	The hon. Lady asked about European debates. I remind her that we will indeed have a European debate in this House on Wednesday 31 October, as I have just announced as part of the provisional business, on a motion to approve European documents relating to EU budget simplification and the multi-annual financial framework. That will give an opportunity, in addition to the Prime Minister’s statement on the EU Council, for Members to debate the future of EU budgets. That is from a Government who are determined to ensure that we do not see increases in the EU budget of the kind we saw in the past and, still less, increases in this country’s contributions, such as those that followed the former Labour Prime Minister’s giving up the rebate that this country had enjoyed.
	The hon. Lady asked about my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. He is doing his job and doing it well. He is now in his place, but he also has many other duties elsewhere in the House. He knows, as he has made clear, that he made a mistake. He apologised for it, and the police officer concerned and the Metropolitan police accepted that apology. I will take no lectures today, or indeed during next Wednesday’s Opposition day debate on the police, about the support this Government give the police. In my constituency in Cambridgeshire we are seeing an increase in the number of police and additional police are being recruited. For my part, as someone whose brother was a senior officer in the Metropolitan police and whose niece and her husband are officers, I support them. We support them and will continue to do so.

Edward Leigh: Clearly, we have a very light legislative programme this year. Rather than regretting that, should we not rejoice in it? After all, in the past 30 years, in which we have had large overall majorities, so much legislative rubbish has poured through this building, imposing more and more rules and regulations on people. Should not our motto be, to adapt Lord Falkland’s dictum, “When it is not necessary to legislate, it is necessary not to legislate”? Is that not a good motto for this Conservative Government?

Andrew Lansley: I think that is always a good motto to pursue, but from our point of view it is sometimes necessary to legislate. That is what we are doing, not
	least in the progress that we have already made on the Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Bill, and also with the publication today of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill and the Bill relating to HGV road user levies. We are taking further measures that will promote growth and the development of infrastructure in this country, getting us the growth that we know is an absolute necessity, alongside deficit reduction, for improving our competitive position.
	When the Leader of the Opposition is out marching with the TUC and it is saying that it wants long-term economic progress but does not think that political leaders today are offering that, he might reflect that that is exactly true in relation to him—that the Labour party’s leadership are not addressing the long-term economic problems of this country, they are denying the deficit and they have no policies for growth. We in the coalition are putting forward those policies for growth.

Tony Lloyd: Will the Leader of the House allow me to record my thanks to the many people who have made my job so simple during the 29-plus years that I have been in the House? I am thinking of the Clerks of the House and those who clean for us and staff the cafés and bars to make our lives straightforward.
	I also offer my thanks and appreciation to colleagues on both sides of the House—more enthusiastically to some than to others, perhaps—for being part of the enormous privilege of serving my constituents in Stretford and Manchester Central over those years, in what is still a wonderful and great experiment in representative parliamentary democracy.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Members on both sides will appreciate not only his sentiments, but how he expressed them. I share in that and know that the staff of the House will appreciate it too.

Penny Mordaunt: The Leader of the House will be aware of the heroic efforts of Portsmouth supporters trust in its quest to enable its community to own its club. It has often had to do battle with football governance rules that are not fit for purpose—not least the “fit and proper person” test, which is less rigorous than a five-minute session on Google. Given the importance of the national game to our communities, is it not time that we debated the reform of football governance and finance?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes an important point. I am aware of how she has supported the Portsmouth supporters trust’s trailblazing bid, and I very much appreciate the sentiments that she has expressed. The Government share her view that we need to impress on the football authorities the need for stronger scrutiny of clubs at all levels and transparency about ownership. She will be aware of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee inquiry into football governance. I would be happy to refer the matter to the Sports Minister; she might also talk to him about the
	issue. There may be an opportunity, not least in light of the Committee’s inquiry, for the matter to be considered by the House.

Natascha Engel: Hundreds of thousands of people have signed e-petitions, which resulted from the system that the Government launched last year. Unfortunately, that number does not translate into people’s being satisfied with the system. To avoid further frustration and anger among those who use the system, will the new Leader of the House work with the Backbench Business Committee to see whether we can bring the system into Parliament, as suggested by the Procedure Committee in the last Parliament, to make the system the success that it ought to be?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It is indeed right that, under the coalition Government, not least through the e-petition system and the Backbench Business Committee reform, we are improving opportunities for public engagement. Those are being taken up and they are demonstrating their potential. In so far as there is confusion, we just have to work through it. I entirely understand the hon. Lady’s point. We will, of course, work together. I look forward to working with Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Lady’s Committee and the Procedure Committee to ensure that public engagement, not least through the new e-petition system, is as good as we can make it.

Bob Russell: In the Ministry of Defence there appears to be ignorance of Government policies on localism and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises. May we have a debate, or at least an oral statement from a Minister, about garrison radio? I am talking about local garrison radio services such as those in Colchester, Aldershot and Catterick. There is urgency because on Monday the Ministry of Defence is due to sign away those local radio stations to the British Forces Broadcasting Service, which hitherto has shown no interest in local garrison radio.

Andrew Lansley: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. I remind him that Defence Ministers will be here for questions on Monday. He may find that to be the earliest, and therefore most appropriate, opportunity to raise the matter.

Chris Bryant: I am delighted that the Prime Minister is going to be here on Monday because I have a question that I would like to ask him; with any luck I will manage to catch your eye, Mr Speaker.
	May I ask the Leader of the House about the House business committee? The coalition agreement guarantees that that will be in place by the third year of the coalition Government. Many of us thought that meant by the beginning of the third year, but there are now only 18 Thursdays before the end of the third year. Will the Leader of the House scotch rumours, multiplying by the day, that he is trying to prevent the committee from coming into being?

Andrew Lansley: I will simply repeat what I said, I think, at business questions last time around. It is a matter of weeks since I took up this post and I am absolutely clear about what the coalition programme has said about the
	introduction of a House business committee in 2013. There are no grounds for any rumours, but I will make it clear that there have already been important developments, not least the Backbench Business Committee, which is enabling the House to exercise more control over business; that is a very positive step, and my intention is to understand how that is being developed and ensure that we can develop it further.

Harriett Baldwin: May we have a debate on NHS waiting times? Figures out today show that waiting lists have fallen to new record lows, with 95% of patients being seen within 18.6 weeks and the number waiting over a year also declining to a record low. Such a debate would allow Members on both sides of the House to put on the record their appreciation for the hard work of NHS staff.

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. Not only the figures published today but also the document published today, which summarises the performance of the NHS in the first quarter of this financial year, through to the end of June, demonstrate that NHS staff are continuing to deliver continually improving performance. I heard Opposition Members show apparent disbelief about that; I remind them that when we came into office, more than 200,000 patients had waited beyond 18 weeks. We have brought that down by more than 50,000. Approaching 20,000 people had waited beyond a year for treatment and we have brought that figure down to below 5,000. That is in addition to many other aspects of improving performance in a service that, on the latest data, has already delivered, in a year and a quarter, £7 billion of the up to £20 billion efficiency savings required and continues to deliver an overall financial surplus.

Mark Durkan: In the aftermath of the LIBOR scandal, we were told by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister in statements, debates and questions that changes could be made to the Financial Services Bill. Are we to take it from the current consultation on secondary legislation that the Government no longer plan to adjust or add to the primary legislation?

Andrew Lansley: I direct the hon. Gentleman to what the Financial Secretary to the Treasury stated in a written ministerial statement to the House yesterday. That clearly set out the position.

Mark Pawsey: When we hold our debate on the police, I wonder whether we will be able to bear in mind this week’s report from Warwickshire police that levels of crime in the county are the lowest for six years. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Chief Constable Andy Parker and his officers and agree that that means that the concerns of many officers about reforms to the service are unfounded?

Andrew Lansley: I gladly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Warwickshire police. The reduction in crime is not least because of the Government’s focus on ensuring that we reduce bureaucracy, freeing up 4.5 million hours of police time in a year. That increases the proportion of police time involved in front-line duties, so that while we achieve the necessary financial
	performance for the police service, we also get more police providing front-line services, enabling us to continue reducing crime.

Kate Hoey: Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent debate on the risk to the lives of Londoners of the proposed closure of 17 fire stations across London, including the very important one in Clapham in my constituency? Does he agree that Londoners will just not accept that, and that there must be other ways of saving money?

Andrew Lansley: I will, if I may, ask my ministerial colleague from the Department for Communities and Local Government to respond to the hon. Lady. I do not know of any plans for a debate on the matter, although the hon. Lady may want to seek an Adjournment debate about it.

John Glen: I welcome the news that the Government are working with industry to make £1 billion available for leading science projects. Porton Down in my constituency has the potential to build on its reputation as a hub of world-class research. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement on the outcome of the recent applications for the regional growth fund, which would enable the Minister to reflect on the merits of Wiltshire’s bid to have a science park at Porton Down?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that he, Wiltshire council and the institutes and businesses in his area are working to bring together Wiltshire science university and to exploit what is one of the leading centres for science and life sciences. Because of my previous ministerial responsibilities, I am very well aware of the world-leading character of the work that is being done at Porton Down, not least under the Health Protection Agency. In response to his question, I hope that there will be announcements very shortly in relation to the regional growth fund, where we are seeing many projects coming through and further resources being put behind projects that will enable us further to exploit our leading position in science.

Ian Lavery: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on sports sponsorship, with the ultimate objective of putting in place a fit and proper companies test for future sponsorship of major sporting events? I name the likes of Atos and Wonga—companies which, in my belief, are pretty dubious in terms of being in a position to sponsor major events.

Andrew Lansley: As the hon. Gentleman knows from the business I have announced, I have no immediate plans to do that. If he feels strongly about this issue, he might like to promote it by way of an Adjournment debate or through the Backbench Business Committee. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), the Culture, Media and Sport Committee is looking at many of the issues relating to the governance of sport, and he might like to correspond with it too.

Andrew Percy: There continues to be a lot of concern on both sides of the House about education funding. We know that this situation has not
	been established overnight but goes back many years. However, children in the poorest part of my constituency continue to receive hundreds of pounds less for their education than those in the wealthy part. May we have a debate on this important issue?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I think he will recognise that under this coalition Government the pupil premium plays a vital part in ensuring that those who come from the most disadvantaged families and communities have education resources put behind them to enable them to achieve better results. That is particularly true this year because of the resources being made available for the catch-up premium for those in year 7. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has set out proposals on the future of education funding that are still subject to consultation.

Clive Efford: May we have a debate on the place of plebs in society? The worst aspect of what the Chief Whip said to those police officers was that they should know their place, and such a debate would not only give him the opportunity to get on his feet and give us the truth about what happened but give those of us who consider ourselves to be plebs an opportunity to know exactly what our place is.

Andrew Lansley: I explained in response to the shadow Leader of the House how I feel about this. It is all very well Labour Members trying to make political capital out of this, but we support the police. We are getting on with that job, and the Chief Whip is getting on with that job and doing a grand job in doing so.

Zac Goldsmith: More or less everyone, whether opponent or advocate of the third runway, agrees that delaying the decision until after the election is both cynical and disruptive. Will the Leader of the House allow us time to debate the timing of the Davies review?

Andrew Lansley: Clearly, my hon. Friend may seek opportunities for a debate, but it would be inappropriate for the Government to do so when we are in the midst of the further review undertaken by Howard Davies, which will provide an interim report next year and a final report in 2015. As my hon. Friend and the whole House knows, these are immensely complicated issues that it is not easy to resolve in a short period of time.

Ian Mearns: This year in Manchester two people have been arrested, charged, prosecuted and imprisoned for abusing police officers, and in South Shields in the north-east of England an arrest has taken place for a similar offence. May we have a debate on policing, prosecutions and sentencing as a matter of urgency, as it is very topical?

Andrew Lansley: I think that members of the public watching our discussion might wonder whether it would not be better for Members to devote themselves to the interests of their constituents and new issues rather than constantly trying to contrive new ways of returning to an issue that, frankly, was closed weeks ago. The Chief Whip apologised and that apology was accepted, and on that basis the matter was closed.

Greg Mulholland: May we have a statement from the Sports Minister on what is happening to deliver the Olympic and Paralympic legacy at community sports level? May I bring to his and the House’s attention the “Get Involved—Be Inspired” initiative, which organises events to get people involved in participating and volunteering, the first of which will be held at Lawnswood school in my constituency?

Andrew Lansley: I am delighted to hear about how the Olympic legacy is giving rise to additional sporting activity in my hon. Friend’s constituency. I know that that will happen across the country, because the Olympic legacy is being followed up by my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Communities and Local Government, and by Lord Coe. That is happening not only through activities such as the school games—which this year, for the first time, demonstrated the fantastic capacity for sporting participation across the whole school system; half the schools in this country took part, and back in the early summer I went to the Olympic park to see 35,000 children participating in the finals—but more generally, not least through the measures being taken by the Department of Health to encourage physical activity for every child, particularly at primary school level, so that when children are contemplating taking part in physical activity in later years they have a grounding that enables them to do so.

Jim Sheridan: Important though it may be to some people, could the Leader of the House justify why he has allocated six hours of debate in this Chamber to badger culling? Given all the issues facing the country and our constituents, is that really a priority for this Government?

Andrew Lansley: I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that the allocation of time for a debate on the badger cull was made through the Backbench Business Committee and not provided by the Government.

Guto Bebb: The Welsh Language Act 1993, which was championed in this House by my predecessor Lord Roberts, has been diluted by the Welsh language measure passed by the Labour-Plaid Administration in the Welsh Assembly in 2011—a change that has resulted in significantly less protection for the Welsh language in non-devolved matters. May we have a debate in this House to reaffirm the principles of the 1993 Act, which are being diluted by the actions of the Labour-Plaid Administration?

Andrew Lansley: I understand my hon. Friend’s point, as will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. He and the Wales Office are addressing this issue and will continue to work with the Welsh Language Commissioner and with the non-devolved Departments and organisations to champion the Welsh language. I will further contact the Secretary of State and ask him to be aware of my hon. Friend’s comments and to respond.

Dave Watts: It is 18 months since the then Health Minister promised to make the allocation for my local private finance initiative hospital in St Helens available to the trust, but it still has not got
	its budget and is weeks away from being required to set one. May we have a statement on when funding will be made available to those trusts?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Ministers from the Department of Health will be here on Tuesday, when he may wish to raise that issue. Under this Government, we as Health Ministers for the first time addressed the problems created by the mismanaged PFI programme under the previous Government. We made it clear that where the problems were most deep-seated, not least in relation to the St Helens and Knowsley Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, we were prepared, on the basis of a good business plan, to give continuing support in order to resolve any problems.

Chris White: During the recess I was pleased to visit two very important charities in my constituency: Myton Hospice and Guide Dogs UK. Both are involved in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our society and rely on the good will and support of our communities. Will the Leader of the House commit Government time to a debate on the importance of charities and the impact that they have on our communities, so that we can better support them?

Andrew Lansley: That is an important representation for the use of Government time and, indeed, Backbench Business Committee time. My hon. Friend makes a good point. Guide Dogs UK illustrates how a charity can provide something integral to the life of a community—something that enables people to realise their potential—without which the whole community would be so much poorer.
	Last year our noble friend Lord Hodgson looked at how to reduce the impact of red tape on charities and voluntary groups and made 117 recommendations in his report, “Unshackling Good Neighbours”. We are looking to implement as many of those as possible and have already reported back on our progress so far.

Denis MacShane: Could the Minister with responsibility for sport make a statement about not just the racist incident in Serbia the other night, but the appalling reaction of the Serbian Football Association, which said that nothing happened and that it is all the fault of the English black player and his team mates? The former Serb leader Karadzic is denying Srebrenica in The Hague and the Serb Prime Minister in Belgrade is denying the existence of Kosovo. What is wrong with the Serbs? Does the Leader of the House agree that their national and club teams need to be suspended for the rest of this season, until they apologise for the disgraceful racist statement? The PM has already condemned it and we now need action from UEFA.

Andrew Lansley: I did not have the opportunity to see the England under-21 match, but I have seen the news reports and news footage of it. I absolutely share the right hon. Gentleman’s sense of shock at the events, as does the Minister with responsibility for sport, who has made it absolutely clear that what happened was unacceptable. Any kind of racist abuse is unacceptable. He has urged UEFA to act and to do so quickly and strongly in relation to any such unacceptable actions.

Andrew Jones: The UK has become a net exporter of cars and is at the centre of automotive research. Some fantastic innovative work is taking place, as I have seen at Nidec SR Drives in Harrogate in my constituency. Could we have a debate about the manufacturing success of the automotive sector, specifically looking at what more could be done to support it and whether there are any lessons from its success that could inform other sectors?

Andrew Lansley: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. What he describes is part of an essential rebalancing of the economy. A million manufacturing jobs were lost under the previous Government as they neglected the industry in pursuit of the prawn cocktail circuit in the City of London. We now know that we have to have a balanced economy that enables us to pay our way in future. Nothing is more significant in that regard than our ability to promote competitiveness in manufacturing and exports. We have some world-leading manufacturing sectors. Vehicle manufacturing in this country has made tremendous strides forward. We have some of the most efficient plants anywhere in the world, and evidence from them must be used to inform how we can deliver advanced manufacturing elsewhere. The aim of the Government’s programmes through the Technology Strategy Board is to promote exactly that.

Phil Wilson: The Northern Echo reports today that Durham Tees Valley airport, which is a strategic transport hub in the north-east and my constituency, will not receive the regional growth grant that it applied for to help create 1,500 jobs. Could we have an urgent statement from the Business Secretary on the ability of the regional growth fund to deliver regional growth, especially when only £60 million has reached front-line operations?

Andrew Lansley: On the contrary, I heard the Deputy Prime Minister explain to the House the day before yesterday how a very high proportion of regional growth fund moneys are now reaching projects and delivering the promotion of growth. I will, however, seek a response from the Business Department to the case raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Philip Davies: May we have a debate on the unacceptable practices of the banks in general and the Yorkshire bank in particular? It is treating its business customers in a most appalling manner, piling on unjustifiable costs and new terms, including a constituent of mine who has been a customer of the Yorkshire bank for 35 years and never missed a payment. When banks make risky investments that go wrong, surely they should stand the losses and not pass them on to their long-established, sound small business customers.

Andrew Lansley: I will draw my hon. Friend’s important point to the attention of my Treasury colleagues. He may also like to raise it with the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which is considering such issues.

Meg Hillier: Earlier this week the Home Secretary made it clear to the House that she is seeking to opt out of all justice and home affairs measures in the European Union. She is playing hokey-cokey by saying that she
	may want to opt in again, but there is no guarantee that it would be possible to opt back into the EU arrest warrant. May we have a debate in Government time on this vital issue? I am worried about the effect that the absence of an arrest warrant would have on justice for the victims of those who commit a crime and flee to European countries.

Andrew Lansley: I will consider the hon. Lady’s request. The Home Secretary’s statement was clear. Using the opt-out in the way she proposes will give us the leverage to get the kinds of measures, if we want to opt into them, that are in this country’s interests. The Home Secretary set out an excellent approach that will enable us to focus on what is in this country’s interests and to secure those interests.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to the Dorset security services and, indeed, the armed forces for their part in ensuring that the Weymouth-based Olympic events were safe and went without incident? Could we have a debate on the efficiency of local resilience forums and the work of tier 1 and tier 2 responders? It was clear in Dorset that existing structures would not have coped and that extra measures, which have now sadly been removed, were needed to keep the games safe.

Andrew Lansley: I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to respond on the issue of local resilience forums and their effectiveness. I know from my own experience that they are being developed, enhanced and strengthened even now. I endorse entirely what my hon. Friend has said. I did not have an opportunity to visit Weymouth during the Olympics or Paralympics, but what I saw demonstrated that it was the most remarkable event. We are all grateful to the armed forces for their contribution in making it a remarkable success.

Simon Danczuk: A motion that I tabled appears in today’s Order Paper and reads:
	“That, in the opinion of the House, the salary of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Government Chief Whip) be reduced by £1,000.”
	That equates to the amount for which the Chief Whip would be prosecuted for doing what he did. Surely that is worthy of debate.

Andrew Lansley: I answered that question earlier. It is interesting that nobody on the Opposition Benches has requested a debate on employment. Given that we have seen a further reduction in unemployment and a dramatic improvement in jobs in the private sector in this country since the election, it is interesting that they want to pursue a party political point rather than an issue that is in this country’s interests.

Henry Smith: In recent weeks there has been a spate of burglaries in my constituency and in other parts of the country, targeting the Asian community in particular. The issue has been heightened by the fact that many safety deposit boxes, which used to be available in banks and in which people could store their jewellery,
	are no longer available. Could we have a debate on the importance of the availability of safety deposit boxes in high street banks, so that people can keep their valuables safe?

Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend raises an important issue that also affects the constituencies of other hon. Members. The Association of Chief Police Officers lead on burglary is due to meet banks to establish the extent of the problem caused by the closure of secure storage and to offer crime prevention advice, including, where appropriate, the use of home safes. Moreover—I know that my hon. Friend will fully endorse this—this is further evidence of how police and crime commissioners, following their election, will be able to address such issues so that police forces can respond to them as part of their operational priorities.

Nicholas Dakin: Yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for several weeks, the Chief Whip has struggled to answer questions about exactly what he said in Downing street. Is it time for a ministerial statement on ministerial answers?

Andrew Lansley: No.

Andrew Stephenson: I recently visited Graham Engineering, an excellent firm based in Nelson which specialises in the nuclear sector. It recently submitted an excellent grant application under the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative. The proposal would create or secure a large number of jobs in my constituency, and support the supply chains in which they operate. I have raised the Graham Engineering proposal with a number of Ministers, but may we have a debate on supporting advanced manufacturing to ensure that such great firms continue to thrive under this Government?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am sure that Graham Engineering and other firms in his constituency are appreciative of his support. That firm has put in a bid for funding under the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which is one of the initiatives to which I referred earlier that support the competitiveness of industry. Those bids are being assessed. Ministers will play no direct part in that process. The independent assessment board will meet on 14 November to decide on those bids.

Mark Lazarowicz: I strongly endorse the call from the shadow Leader of the House for a further Government statement on energy tariffs. The Leader of the House should not underestimate the degree of disarray that will be caused to the energy industry by the combination of the Prime Minister’s answer yesterday and the answer to the urgent question today. The matter needs to be cleared up now, because companies will not know what the Government expect them to do on social tariffs and fuel poverty. On all these important issues, we need answers in days, not months.

Andrew Lansley: I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view. The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) answered the urgent question and made it clear that simplification
	and tariff reform will form part of the energy Bill, enabling us to deliver precisely what he and the Prime Minister said we would do, which is to use legislation to get consumers the best possible tariff.

Tom Blenkinsop: Two women who ran a business called Purple Mountain for many years recently lost the business due to a tendering process conducted by the Forestry Commission. May we have a debate on tendering processes, and will the Leader of the House ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs meets me and the two business owners so that we can explain the terrible circumstances that they have had to endure?

Andrew Lansley: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue of which I was not aware. I will contact my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ask him to respond.

Derek Twigg: I am very hopeful because of what the Leader of the House has said about having an employment debate. May I ask him for an employment debate, specifically on the problem of Departments holding up decisions that affect the creation of jobs? Heath business and technical park in my constituency has a dispute with Manweb over electrical lines, which is holding up much-needed investment in jobs and housing. The Department of Energy and Climate Change is saying to me that it does not have the resources to make the decision quickly. It is many months since the matter went to DECC. If we cannot have a debate, will the Leader of the House intervene to remind the Department that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor want to ensure the speedy resolution of infrastructure and housing decisions?

Andrew Lansley: I am encouraged by the hon. Gentleman’s support for a debate on employment. He might like to talk to his party’s Front Benchers, because so far this Session, including for the seventh allotted day, they have not sought one debate on employment. That is a great pity because, judging by what the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, one would have thought that it was the matter with the greatest importance.
	We need to debate employment because the figures are compelling: employment is up; there are more than 1 million more jobs in the private sector; we are tackling youth unemployment, not least through the youth contract; we are tackling long-term unemployment, not least through the Work programme, from which 693,000 people are already benefiting; and there has been a two-thirds year-on-year increase in the number of young people going into apprenticeships since the time of the Labour Government. Those are important things, but we are not complacent. There is more to be done and we are going to do it. A debate will help us to achieve that.

Jim Shannon: Is the Leader of the House aware of the concerns of the more than 1 million shooting enthusiasts in the UK over Royal Mail’s decision to ban the postage of firearms and their parts throughout the UK? More than 1,000 comments from shooting enthusiasts have already been registered. Will the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate on this important matter, which will potentially jeopardise rural businesses and legal leisure pursuits?

Andrew Lansley: I am grateful for that question. I cannot promise a debate or a statement, but I will seek a response from my right hon. Friend to the point that the hon. Gentleman rightly makes.

Alison Seabeck: A constituent wrote to me about the powers of the receiver under the Law of Property Acts. I forwarded the letter to the Ministry of Justice on 8 May. We chased it up on 19 July and my excellent caseworker chased it again on 24 August and 29 September. We did not get a reply or an acknowledgement. Will the Leader of the House please ensure that a Minister comes to the House to reassure Members from all parties that Departments will respond to letters from MPs in a timely manner and not leave it six months?

Andrew Lansley: Across Government, it is always our intention to respond in a timely manner. I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about the matter that she raises.

Alex Cunningham: Further to the question raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Sedgefield (Phil Wilson), I again ask the Leader of the House to persuade the Business Secretary to come to the House to explain the decision not to give a regional growth fund grant to Durham Tees Valley airport. I would like to know why the decision was leaked to the media and why the Prime Minister’s pledge of support to the airport from the Dispatch Box just a few months ago counts for nothing.

Andrew Lansley: As I said, I will talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and secure a response to the issues that have been raised. The hon. Gentleman may wish to raise the matter at BIS questions on 8 November.

Valerie Vaz: May we have an urgent debate on the sale of publicly owned freehold assets—the so-called family silver? In a written answer to me, the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, the hon. Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), said that the information was not held centrally. Will the Leader of the House say how such matters are being audited and how there is accountability for this public money?

Andrew Lansley: The House will remember that the gold was sold by a former Chancellor, losing this country £5 billion. From our point of view, not least following resource accounting, it is important that we use assets efficiently. It is the responsibility of Ministers across Government to ensure that they are aware of where they have freehold assets and to use them.

Wayne David: In 1908, an organisation was set up to promote independent working-class education. It was called the Plebs’ League. Would the Leader of the House support an all-party parliamentary group whose purpose was to promote the principles behind that organisation once again?

Andrew Lansley: I was not aware of that organisation, but I am happy to be advised of it. As is shown by the Workers’ Educational Association and the like, education
	is one of the routes of social mobility. That is something that this Government have focused on and we will continue to do so.

Jonathan Ashworth: Many Members have raised sports-related issues with the Leader of the House today. Will he consider having a general debate on sports matters, so that we can talk about Wonga sponsoring football stadiums? I am concerned that future sporting events, such as the rugby world cup in 2015, should be a great success. Does he agree that it is ridiculous that Leicester Tigers’ Welford Road stadium has been excluded from the list of venues for the rugby world cup in 2015?

Andrew Lansley: I am not in the least surprised that sports issues have featured strongly in business questions, because the Olympics and Paralympics demonstrated the power of sport to inspire and enthuse people. I hope that we will follow through on that. Many of the issues that have been raised are about the governance of sport. I will discuss with my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Backbench Business Committee how we might provide an opportunity to discuss this range of issues.

Points of Order

Thomas Docherty: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This is the first week of our new sitting hours. Would it be possible for the Clerks to circulate to the Government Whips Office a short memo telling them that we are starting an hour earlier, so that the Government Chief Whip can be here for the start of business questions?

Mr Speaker: That is not a point of order, and it is not a matter for the Chair. I think the hon. Gentleman is intimately conscious of both those facts.

Greg Mulholland: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I seek your advice on a serious matter—misinformation being provided by civil servants both to Members of the House and to members of the press and public. The hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) raised that matter on Monday, but this is a different example. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills officials have said publicly that the commitments made in the Government response to a Select Committee inquiry have now been fulfilled, but they clearly have not been. They have also said that an independent pubs advisory system has been set up, but it has not. This is a very serious matter that needs to be properly investigated, because officials, as well as Ministers, need to be properly held to account. I seek your advice on how best that should happen.

Mr Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, of whose point of order I had no advance notice. I make no complaint about that, but it is difficult to be certain as to the detail of how best the matter can be addressed.
	I say to the hon. Gentleman that Ministers are responsible for the work of their officials. If he seeks to hold Ministers to account for information that is or is not being provided, he has the recourse of the Table Office and the opportunity to table questions. If he remains dissatisfied, I know that he is nothing if not persistent and indefatigable, and he can always seek an Adjournment debate on the matter. I hope that is a helpful and substantive response to his important point.

Wayne David: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Given that the Government Chief Whip has been chewing for most of this morning, is it appropriate for masticating to be allowed in the Chamber?

Mr Speaker: I will not go into that. I would say only that quite a lot of noise has been heard in the course of the past hour, but the Government Chief Whip has been as quiet as a church mouse.

Chris Bryant: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I have five named day questions on the Order Paper for tomorrow, numbers 64 to 68, all to the Prime Minister and all following on from the question that was not answered yesterday. I know you said yesterday afternoon that you would be cogitating on the matter overnight, but previous Speakers have ruled clearly that
	written questions have to be answered on time and substantively. Can you also confirm that they actually have to be answered?

Mr Speaker: Yes. They should be answered; they should be answered on time; and they should be answered substantively. That requirement applies to all members of the Government.

BILLS PRESENTED
	 — 
	European Union (Croatian Accession and Irish Protocol) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Secretary Hague, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mrs Secretary May, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Duncan Smith, Mr Secretary Davey, Mr Secretary Paterson, Mrs Secretary Villiers and Mr David Lidington, presented a Bill to make provision consequential on the treaty concerning the accession of the Republic of Croatia to the European Union, signed at Brussels on 9 December 2011, and provision consequential on the Protocol on the concerns of the Irish people on the Treaty of Lisbon, adopted at Brussels on 16 May 2012; and to make provision about the entitlement of nationals of the Republic of Croatia to enter or reside in the United Kingdom as workers.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 76) with explanatory notes (Bill 76-EN).

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No.  57 )
	Mr Secretary Pickles, supported by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Davey, Mr Secretary Paterson, Secretary Maria Miller, Michael Fallon, Nick Boles and Stephen Hammond, presented a Bill to make provision in connection with facilitating or controlling the following, namely, the provision or use of infrastructure, the carrying-out of development, and the compulsory acquisition of land; to make provision about when rating lists are to be compiled; to make provision about the rights of employees of companies who agree to be employee owners; and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 75) with explanatory notes (Bill 75-EN).

Backbench Business
	 — 
	2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

John Baron: I beg to move,
	That this House opposes the disbandment of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (2RRF); notes that 2RRF is the only infantry battalion being cut that was not initially due for disbandment on military grounds; further notes that 2RRF was instead caught by the Government’s additional criteria of only one battalion loss per regiment and no deletion of cap-badges, which has resulted in more poorly-recruited Scottish battalions being saved; further notes the social and economic costs of disbandment; and urges the Government to reverse its decision.
	I shall start by thanking a few people. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate, and I wholeheartedly thank all Members from both sides of the House who have supported our campaign, especially those who have signed the motion. I also thank the many hundreds of ex-Fusiliers who have participated in the march and lobby today outside Parliament in support of the motion, most of whom have been up since the very early hours of the morning and travelled long distances. Our thanks go to them, and most of them are in the Gallery. We wish them well and thank them for their support. I also thank the many other regiments that volunteered to march with the Fusiliers today. Their kind offer was declined, but their support was very much welcome.
	I should perhaps single out one person. It is always unfair to do so, of course, but I would single out Colonel Brian Gorski and his team—they know who they are—for everything that they have done and for their support and tireless efforts. Finally, I thank the Serjeant at Arms and his office; Samantha Howlett, the ticket lady; and everybody else on the parliamentary estate who has engineered an administrative miracle by getting 400-plus Fusiliers into the House today and accommodating them so well.
	Why this debate? Needless to say, I am very proud to have served as a Fusilier. As a regiment, we trace our ancestry to the 17th century, and we have won more battle honours than any other regiment in the British Army, including the Guards. We won more Victoria Crosses in the great war than any other regiment, and we completed more operational tours of Northern Ireland than any other regiment.
	Looking forward, we perhaps need to remind everyone that the Fusiliers is one of the few regiments to have served in all the recent military campaigns, including both Iraq wars, Kosovo, Bosnia and Afghanistan. Operationally, it is one of the most experienced regiments in the British Army. Our fighting record is second to none—that is undisputed, but it is not the subject of this debate. The subject of the debate is our contention that 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is the only infantry battalion to be cut for non-military reasons as part of the Army 2020 proposals.
	We are told that the cuts were based on military logic, notably capability and demographic sustainability, yet answers to written questions, a letter from the Secretary of State and discussions confirm that 2RRF has a
	better recruitment record than other battalions that have been spared. In fact, in recent years 2RRF has one of the best recruiting records of any battalion, and indeed it was the best recruited battalion when the announcement was made.

Jonathan Reynolds: There was one person missing from the list of thank-yous at the beginning of the debate—the hon. Gentleman himself. I thank him for securing the debate and for the campaign that he has led.
	This morning, the hon. Gentleman and I presented several petitions to Downing street, including one containing 10,000 signatures of people in Lancashire and Greater Manchester, collated by the Manchester Evening News. Does that not indicate not just the scale of support for the Fusiliers but the unhappiness at the way in which the decision has been made and the unfairness behind it?

John Baron: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. The strength of feeling has been illustrated not just by today’s march but by the number of people who have signed the petitions. There can be no dispute but that feelings run high on the issue, and I thank him and all other Members who have supported the campaign.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware that Coventry and Warwickshire has been a great recruiting ground for the Fusiliers over the centuries. Does he agree that although we often praise our soldiers in the House, for a change we now have an opportunity to stand by our soldiers’ regiments?

John Baron: I completely agree. This is a clear opportunity to say that we stand side by side with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. At the end of the day, soldiers take orders, which is absolutely right. However, we are having this debate because we contend that 2RRF has been felled by political considerations, to save more poorly recruited Scottish battalions ahead of the 2014 Scottish referendum.
	Let me be clear that I, for one, think that the cuts to the Army, and certainly their scale, are a big mistake. In this increasingly uncertain world, when many countries that are not necessarily friendly to the west are increasing their defence spending, I am really concerned about the scale of our cuts and about the ability of the Territorial Army, much as I respect it, to plug the loss of those regular battalions. I believe that no battalions should be cut, Scottish or otherwise, but if there are to be cuts, they must be based on military logic and not political calculation born out of the misguided view that it will somehow help to save the Union if we save more poorly recruited Scottish battalions.

Graham Stringer: I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his leadership of this campaign. Can we not find further evidence that the decision was not made on military grounds in the fact that it was not part of the Government’s initial proposals but was added later to take political considerations into account? Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

John Baron: I do, and I shall come on to that very point briefly in my speech.

Jim McGovern: I have heard the hon. Gentleman say on a number of occasions that some of the Scottish battalions or regiments should have been disbanded. Is this not a time for mutual support rather than picking on Scottish regiments?

John Baron: Let us be absolutely clear about this. I do not believe that any battalion should be cut at all, and that is a fact, but if there have to be cuts, they must be based on military logic, not political calculation. The bottom line is that the figures provided in answers to written parliamentary questions about recruitment and retention and in the Secretary of State’s response to me clearly show that two Scottish battalions are undermanned—far more so than the equivalent in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. That is what we are discussing. Decisions should be based on military logic, not political calculation.

Jack Lopresti: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and congratulate him on securing the debate. Does he agree that, given the amount of money we are spending on foreign aid and our contribution to the EU budget, it is lunacy for the Government to put themselves in the position of having to make these difficult decisions? Is it not about time the Government reassessed their priorities and put defence of the realm at the top of that list?

John Baron: I completely agree with my hon. Friend, who is spot on. I shall come on to that point later. I for one, to answer the question from the hon. Member for Dundee West (Jim McGovern), am not pointing the finger at any other regiment. I am not asking for further cuts in the Ministry of Defence, but if the Government cannot make the right decision here and now about 2RRF, there is money outside the MOD budget, as my hon. Friend has highlighted, that could be used to reverse this bad decision.
	If hon. Members will forgive me, I want to make a little progress before I take further inventions, as time is pushing on and I know that a number of Members want to speak.
	The Government have been reluctant to justify their reasoning. In fact, getting information from the MOD has been like extracting teeth, and one can see why from the damning evidence that was eventually obtained. The House will remember that on 5 July the Secretary of State for Defence announced the Government’s Army 2020 proposals. As part of the proposals, five infantry battalions were earmarked for disbandment, one of which was 2RRF. The impression created in this Chamber—I and other Members were present—was that the decision was based in large part on military calculations of capability and sustainability, or, in other words, that military logic had prevailed.
	Many of us know that 2RRF not only has a good recruitment record but sound demographics in its core recruiting areas. On 6 July, I tabled named day written parliamentary questions asking for the recruitment and manning figures for all battalions involved. Given that we had been told that the decision on which battalions were to be cut was in large part based on those figures,
	one would have thought that they would have been ready to hand. I did not get the answers until 3 August, a month later, when Parliament was in recess. While I was waiting, I pressed the Prime Minister and the MOD by way of e-mail and letter.
	In my view, the initial response from the hon. Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey), who was then Minister for the Armed Forces, skated over the logic and continued to suggest that the MOD had “used a methodical approach with objective criteria to select those battalions which had to be lost”, but did not tell us what those objective criteria were, despite the fact that I had specifically asked for that in my letter and questions.
	I then finally received answers to my named day questions, comparing 10-year records of establishment and strength for each of the battalions being cut and the five battalions of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. The figures were revealing; they clearly showed that two battalions from the Royal Regiment of Scotland had worse recruiting records by far. On 14 August, I met the Secretary of State and the Chief of the General Staff, General Sir Peter Wall. On that very morning, after a number of phone calls from the MOD, I finally received a letter by e-mail from the Secretary of State. That letter finally admitted that on purely military grounds two Scottish battalions would have been axed. The letter clearly stated that 2RRF was the only one of the battalions being axed that was not initially earmarked for disbandment. In fact, the letter was quite specific. It made it very clear that the five least sustainable battalions are two battalions from the Royal Regiment of Scotland, one from the Yorkshire Regiment, one from the Mercian Regiment and one from the Royal Welsh Regiment.
	The letter went on to explain that what did for 2RRF was the Government’s decision to limit regimental losses to one battalion each and to ensure that no cap badges were lost. The Government’s insistence that no cap badges are lost makes no sense when we think that, as Members will remember, only six years ago in 2006 four cap badges and six battalions were amalgamated to form the five battalions of The Rifles. That was held up as an example of best practice by many senior Army officers. The Government’s justification for capping regimental losses to one battalion also does not make sense or withstand scrutiny. Five-battalion regiments can more easily withstand the loss of two battalions, particularly if they are struggling to sustain them, than two-battalion regiments can withstand the loss of one. Single battalion regiments also find it harder to meet the operational flexibility required and to offer their officers and soldiers a varied and demanding career profile.
	It is perhaps also worth nothing that contrary to Government assertions, no Scottish battalion is being cut. The letter made it clear that on military logic two should have gone, and we know that if the regimental losses had been limited to one battalion, one should have gone. However, the one that should have gone has not gone. All that has happened is that it has been reduced in size for ceremonial duties. No cap badges or colours will be lost north of the border.

Ian Mearns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and securing this debate. I am proud to say that the Royal Northumberland
	Fusiliers, one of the bedrock regiments that form the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was my dad’s regiment. He served in Palestine and north Africa before the war as a regular soldier and was captured in north Africa in 1940.
	Some of my constituents are in the Public Gallery today. Messrs Spalding, Gannon and Allen are welcome to London for this debate—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Unfortunately, we are not meant to mention people who are in the Public Gallery. We can see that a good number of people are present, but we cannot get into mentioning individuals personally.

Ian Mearns: I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I am afraid that the damage is done.
	I have talked to colleagues in the regiment and note that the creed of the battalion includes the words:
	“I will never accept defeat nor let down my mates or my regiment.”
	We should take that on board as regards 2RRF.

John Baron: I completely agree. Once a fusilier, always a fusilier and despite the odds we will carry this campaign to the end.
	I shall wind up shortly, as I am conscious that a number of Members wish to speak, but I must add that the letter from the Secretary of State was revealing in another sense. I have talked about history and recruitment, and some might say, “Well, that is history. What about the future?” The letter, however, cast doubt on the demographic sustainability of the regiment, which I suggest is utter and complete nonsense. The regiment recruits from the three largest cities in the United Kingdom: London, Birmingham and Manchester.

Patrick Mercer: And Newcastle.

John Baron: Yes, and Newcastle. I could go around the country—Rochdale, Bury—but I am sure the regiment will forgive me for not listing every city, town and village. However, it certainly recruits from the three largest cities, and I will not forget Newcastle, of which I have many happy memories.
	The letter from the Secretary of State was revealing because it omitted to mention London as one of the regiment’s recruiting grounds. How can the MOD talk about demographic sustainability if, in its list of what it considers to be the regiment’s regional recruiting grounds, it fails to include London, probably one of the key recruiting grounds? We should not forget that the headquarters of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is based at the Tower of London, yet London was conveniently forgotten.

Bob Stewart: Perhaps the Ministry of Defence had indeed forgotten that the regimental headquarters of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is distinctly in the Tower of London, which I think is in London.

John Baron: It is; my hon. Friend is quite right. [ Interruption. ] I am pleased that the Parliamentary Private Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), agrees. It is strange: we go through the
	recruiting regions of the whole country for the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, yet somebody forgot to mention London. That is absolute nonsense.
	I love Scotland; I am married to a Scot and I believe in the Union. However, this is not the way to go about cementing that Union, and it is impossible to believe that the demographics of Scotland are healthier than for the three largest cities in the country, and the four largest counties—let me mention Newcastle again. Figures also confirm that for battalions exclusively recruited from a country, England has a population of 3 million per infantry battalion, against fewer than one million for Scotland.

Gerald Howarth: May I add my voice to those of other hon. Members who have congratulated my hon. Friend on initiating this debate? I assure him that when I became Defence Minister in 2010, I and my colleagues found it extremely painful to make these difficult decisions. One of the reasons we did so was that we inherited a budget deficit of £156 billion, and to retain the confidence of the international capital markets, something had to be done. We also inherited a £38 billion black hole in the finances of the Ministry of Defence, which has now been put right.
	I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) a belief that there is an alternative. When in government I never said that there was no alternative—there is, and it is to reprioritise Government spending. In my view, we cannot justify spending ever more taxpayers’ money on overseas aid and cutting our armed forces. I recognise that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, carries responsibility for those matters, as did I. We had a real problem to face.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. This is a very important debate and a lot of Members wish to speak. It is going to be time limited, and interventions from both sides of the House must be shorter. I want to hear everybody’s contribution, not just certain ones.

John Baron: Briefly, if there have to be military cuts, I suggest to my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth) that they should be based on military logic, not political calculation. As he knows, he and I are at one when it comes to priorities and Government spending.
	We should not be blind to the social costs of axing 2RRF. Not only will 600 soldiers find themselves out of work—many of whom are recruited from areas that do not have healthy employment opportunities—but there will be a knock-on effect on their families, on veterans and on local affiliated cadet organisations. Furthermore, if 2RRF goes, I suggest that Warwickshire will be the only county in England without a direct battalion link. We should perhaps remember that Field Marshal Montgomery was a Warwickshire fusilier, and his regiment became 2RRF.

Bob Stewart: Not Staffordshire?

John Baron: We will argue about that later; we are all claiming Field Marshal Montgomery. [ Interruption .]
	Looking at the bigger picture, and to follow the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti), I have severe doubts about the extent of the cuts to the Army and our armed forces generally. We must never forget that the first duty of Government is to national security. As the Foreign Secretary reminded us:
	“The range of threats and dangers is, if anything, increasing.”
	Many countries, not necessarily friendly to the west, are increasing their defence spending. Much as I respect the Territorial Army, having been on operations with it, I question the extent to which we are asking it to step up to the plate and plug the gap left by the loss of regular battalions. I am sad to say that the coalition Government continue to cut. Defence spending has halved over the past 20 years, and it continues to decrease.
	I suggest that our relationship with the United States is a process of give and take and is not free. It is based on shared values and a close working relationship on nuclear and security issues, and it is underpinned by our military capability. These are austere times, but given that the first duty of Government is to national security, I suggest that money could be saved in other areas.
	I am not suggesting that the Government do the right thing within the MOD budget; I have made it clear that I am not pointing the finger at other regiments. I am saying that we need to reprioritise our spending. I, for one, have trouble with all the extra billions of pounds that we are sending in our contribution to the EU budget. I also have a problem—I know this is unfashionable but I will say it anyway—with sending £1 billion in aid to India, a country with its own space, nuclear and rearmament programmes, an aircraft carrier, and its own aid programme. We are, in effect, subsidising those programmes, which I think is wrong.
	In conclusion, the Government are wrong. Military logic and not political calculations should determine Army cuts. I am a firm believer in the Union, but this is not the way to achieve it. In my view, the Government’s culpability is illustrated by their reluctance to justify their decision, and the evidence has been damning. That was illustrated by a freedom of information request that I submitted on 6 September, asking for the first draft of the Chief of the General Staff’s recommendations as to which battalions should be cut. I received the answer late last night, saying that that they will not release that information. I ask the Government to think again and reverse the decision to axe 2RRF. I am not calling for any other battalions to be cut, just for this very bad decision to be reversed.

Jim Dobbin: Let me say at the start that despite the dulcet tones hon. Members are listening to and the agreement across the House there should be few or no cuts across England and Scotland, I have an English constituency and am therefore an English Member of Parliament—except, of course, when we are playing football.
	Since this decision was announced in July, a large number of constituents have contacted me, asking me to speak in defence of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. As part of the Fusilier family, the Lancashire Fusiliers recruit heavily from my constituency, and other constituencies across Lancashire.
	It was in July this year that the Secretary of State decided on these heavy cuts to the regular Army, which included the dismantling of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. That is happening at a time when the world is very unstable, so the cut is serious.
	May I convey the feelings and views of my constituents? I will not name them, but present in the Gallery are a representative of the reserve armed forces, the chairman of the Lancashire Veterans Association, and a number of other people from my patch. They told me first hand this morning that they are very proud to be taking part in the first march on Parliament since soldiers demonstrated in the Bishopsgate mutiny of 1649, when 300 members of the new model army protested against Oliver Cromwell’s orders to send them to Ireland.
	This is also the first time that the British Army has taken to the streets in protest—I met some of its members—since it was formed in 1707. That year is famous for the union of the Parliaments, so it could be said that it was around that time that my ancestors became British. Hon. Members will no doubt hear throughout the debate of the regiment’s illustrious history, but more recently the Fusiliers were the first regiment into Iraq, fought the longest battle in Afghanistan, and have had more service in Northern Ireland than any other regiment.
	The Ministry of Defence website states:
	“The Second Fusiliers are a superb, operationally hardened Light Role Infantry Battalion”,
	but 2RRF is the only infantry battalion to be cut for political rather than military reasons.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point, which I want to magnify. Exactly what type of battalion should we keep in this day and age other than battalions that can, as the Army website states,
	“deploy quickly and adapt to any operational scenario”?

Jim Dobbin: My hon. Friend makes the point very clear and I agree with him.
	As the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) has said, 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is the only infantry battalion to be cut for political rather than military reasons; otherwise, the more poorly recruited Scottish battalions would have been axed. In my view, that is outrageous. Is it prudent to interfere politically with the collation of Future Force 2020 with regards to the Army?

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that one way to thank the Army and the Fusiliers in particular is to reinstate the battalion? That would be a big thanks to the Fusiliers for all the service they have given to this country over the past 400 years. Instead, we have redundancies, and all the social consequences of that.

Jim Dobbin: That is the real subject of the debate. Our armed service personnel are the nation’s mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, and political interference brings extra risks.
	May I thank Mr Speaker for allowing this open debate, which is an opportunity to put the right alternatives forward? Members of Parliament can simply encourage the Government to remove additional criteria to limit regimental losses to one battalion or even fewer, and
	that no cap badges should go. If there are to be Army cuts, military capability and sustainability should be the key determinants. Please, I beg the House to ensure that 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has its rightful place in future forces beyond 2020.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Because of the number of hon. Members who wish to speak, we have to put an eight-minute limit on speeches.

Patrick Mercer: As a platoon commander, company commander and a commanding officer, it was my pleasure to service alongside 1st, 2nd and 3rd Battalions the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. I found it a splendid and gallant regiment that was always ready to face the Queen’s enemies. It should not be cut, and neither should any other regiment of British infantry, cavalry, artillery or sappers. Of course cuts have to be made, and defence is not an exception. We are in difficult times and were left with an appalling legacy that must be cured, but not at the expense of those who defend this country.
	I shall expand on the political nature of the decisions later in my speech, but the overall design is not political but military—it is made by senior officers. That is why I was so surprised when the Secretary of State for Defence came to the House and not just announced the regiments that would lose a battalion, but specified the battalions. That shows an extraordinary lack of understanding of how the regimental system works.
	I compliment my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), and thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), whom I rudely failed to thank following his speech. It is not just Warwickshire that has lost its regimental representation; Staffordshire, Derbyshire and a number of other counties no longer have a regimental link and a regimental cap badge to wear.
	I question why those decisions were made. Let us take the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers as an example. The Fusiliers are immensely adaptable. In its time, the regiment has been called the East Devonshire Regiment. The 7th( )Regiment bore the title “Derbyshire”. It adapted and overcame, and were reconfigured again and again to the demands of the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries.
	The current document, “Transforming the British Army”, which was published in July 2012, says that the formations of the British Army are to be based on infantry battalions. In my day, they were based on armoured units, and largely on tanks, because we faced a different sort of threat, but things have changed. The leading arm is now infantry. I quite understand that, and as an ex-infantry man I applaud it, but the point is adaptability. The face of war has changed, and the very arm chosen to lead our combat arms is being cut to the bone in an illogical fashion.
	I am interested in the regimental system. “Transforming the British Army” refers to structural changes and states that the fewest number of cap badges that can sustain the regimental system should be lost from across the Army, and yet in May, the Secretary of State said:
	“The ancient cap badges have largely gone—they are attached in brackets to some unit names. I can’t say to you that there will be no loss of battalions in the infantry as we downsize the Army. We are looking at the options.”
	Which is it to be? Are we maintaining the regimental system or are we scrapping the ancient cap badges?
	Just a few short years ago, under the previous Government, it was explained that our infantry structures would be changed in such a way that there would be no more single battalions left in the Army, with the exceptions of the five battalions of Guards and the one battalion of the Royal Irish Rangers, which is now the Royal Irish Regiment. It was explained that single-battalion regiments were not sustainable, and that the careers of non-commissioned officers and officers depended on there being at least two battalions—possibly three, and, better still, five—in every regiment. How have things changed in the last 24 months to such an extent that we are prepared to reduce a well recruited, sustainable and fighting regiment such as the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers to one battalion? Similarly, the Royal Welsh Regiment, the Yorkshire Regiment and the Mercian Regiment will lose sustainable, capable, fighting battalions. It is a disgrace. It is a disgrace that makes no sense, and a disgrace that is based on ill judgment and ignorance among both politicians and senior officers.
	We simply cannot have our fighting forces cut at a time when the world is unstable. It strikes me as utterly illogical. People have simply not opened their history books and seen that every time this country cuts its forces, we are immediately met by another drama. Where do I start? The Korean war? The Crimean war? I could give any number of historical examples, which I know you do not want me to do, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will only say that most recently we cut HMS Ark Royal and our Harrier fleet, yet within days—days!—we needed both. My own regiment was scrapped in the 1960s, yet was needed within weeks, when the Northern Ireland crisis exploded in a way that we could never possibly have imagined.
	This is an act of extreme short-sightedness. Money can be found from elsewhere to sustain our combat arms. If that money has to come from within the military system, let us not cut combat arms. Let us cut the endless number of senior officers, cooks, bottle washers, signallers, computer operators, drivers, batmen and bootblacks who support our Army today. We cannot have this. These battalions are precious, and if I hear one more plaintive voice raised about recruiting, I think I will be sick. When I commanded an infantry battalion, albeit some time ago, I was told that it was impossible to recruit from below the minus 40 I had in my battalion, but within six months we were plus 120. We had a spare company. When I was told that it was impossible to recruit in Scotland, I pointed to the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards, which raised an extra squadron in next to no time.
	We are now looking at taking away the current recruiting system and replacing it with a civilianised system. This is wrong. We have had defence cut after defence cut after defence cut. Before we know it, our old, proper, sensible and fighting regiments will disappear forever. The Fusiliers and the others must be spared for the sake of the nation.

Mary Glindon: It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who has defended the motion so eloquently.
	I thank the Backbench Business Committee and congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this important debate. He has worked extremely hard over the past few months on behalf of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and its supporters, and has drawn together MPs from across the House to forward the campaign. Had it not been for his exceptional effort, I do not think we would be having this debate today. Nor would we have witnessed the wonderful sight of 400 Fusiliers marching down Whitehall to join us in Parliament.
	I give my full support to the motion, but in doing so I do not wish to slight our Scottish colleagues in the House or the brave soldiers who serve in the Scottish battalions. The motion serves to highlight the Government’s flawed strategic defence and security review, which sees 30,000 servicemen and women lose their jobs in cuts.

Ian Lavery: I stand fully behind the retention of 2RRF, which is really important, but does my hon. Friend agree that the mention of the Scottish battalions does no favours to the motion? Had it not mentioned any other battalions, it would have been more comradely and in the right spirit, and would probably have garnered more support.

Mary Glindon: The Scottish battalions are mentioned because of the unfortunately political manner in which the Government are carrying out the disbandment.
	The cuts will not only cost jobs but cost people their careers, could result in thousands of ex-servicemen and women facing long-term unemployment, and in time could pose a threat to the security of our nation. In the north-east, 200 soldiers will lose not only their jobs but, as I have said, the careers they have trained hard for and of which they are rightly proud. Soldiers from the north-east have a long history of service in the British Army. During the first world war, the Northumberland Fusiliers raised more battalions than any other in Britain—52—and in those days a battalion was more than 1,000 strong.
	Today, the north-east still provides more soldiers for the Army than any other region in the UK, so it is no surprise that, when the Secretary of State announced the disbandment, veterans, the public and politicians joined the campaign to make the Government see the unfairness of their actions.

Sharon Hodgson: rose —

Ian Liddell-Grainger: rose —

Mary Glindon: I give way to the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) first.

Ian Liddell-Grainger: I was probably going to make the same point as the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson). I was honoured to be
	a company commander in the then X company of the Northumberlands. I totally agree with what the hon. Lady says. The Northumberland Fusiliers had more battalions because it recruited from the strongest recruiting area almost in the country. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) mentioned the situation in Newcastle. Does she agree that the Fusiliers must continue to survive, because of their strength at all levels? The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West will probably say exactly the same thing.

Mary Glindon: I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).

Sharon Hodgson: I was going to make a slightly different point from the hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger). The 200 Fusiliers who will lose their jobs will have 200 families, probably with many children, and in this time of restraint, with the double-dip recession and the high unemployment, especially in the north-east, we should not be making 200 people redundant and leaving them looking for jobs.

Mary Glindon: Both those points strengthen the case for maintaining the 2RRF.
	I have been proud to support the local campaign, which has received the kind support of the Newcastle Journal and the Evening Chronicle, which has been fantastic in helping to publicise the fight across our region. The veterans and the Fusiliers have played a massive role in promoting the campaign, and have organised two public events in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, which I have been honoured to attend.
	It was at one of these events that the real impact of the Government’s decision hit home. I noticed among the honoured veterans and members of the public a young man standing particularly proud during the minute’s silence, in a way that no other civilian around him did. After the ceremony, as the crowds chattered and photographs were taken, I managed to speak to this young man. He told me that he had been a Fusilier, but that more than a year ago had had an accident and had to leave.
	Fortunately, the young man has fully recovered, but he has not been able to find any work since leaving the Army. Shamefully, employers do not always seem keen to employ ex-soldiers. He told me that he would be eligible to re-apply to rejoin the Army in November, and that it was his greatest wish to resume his Army career in the 2nd Battalion. My heart went out to the young man and to all the other young people who, like generations before them, have wanted to serve their country in the military but who now have little prospect of ever being able to serve as full-time soldiers.
	Former members of the Territorial Army are sceptical about the Secretary of State’s plans to replace full-time soldiers with an expanded reserve force. They gave me the example of the 6th Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which had been a well-recruited and fully equipped, operational, NATO-role battalion, and which was recognised as one of the best in the country. The battalion was disbanded and became the Tyne-Tees Regiment in 1999, but it lost all its support weapons, which meant that associated skills were lost too. It now exists as the 5th Rifle Battalion, with only three companies
	and no support weapons. There is a severe shortage of officers and senior non-commissioned officers, and a lack of funding has meant no training and led to the deskilling of the battalion.
	The fear is that disbanding regular units that are not immediately replaced by a reserve capacity creates a wide capacity gap—indeed, a gap in our entire national security. The campaign is clear in its aims. The 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has no trouble recruiting in London, Manchester, Birmingham or the north-east, as has been said. It is currently at full strength. The regiments that the Government are choosing to save have to recruit largely from foreign and Commonwealth troops. Our Government have said they are committed to British jobs for British people. Clearly in this instance they are not. The campaigners and supporters of the motion know that this is not a fair decision.

Andrew Robathan: I should point out that the recruitment of foreign and Commonwealth troops took off under the last Government. There was a deliberate policy to recruit up to, I think, 10%. I should say that those troops do a very good job, most of them, and I pay tribute to them, but I do not think the hon. Lady should accuse us of in some way being illogical in this regard.

Mary Glindon: I do not think I mentioned the Minister being “illogical”. The point is that those battalions are poorly recruited and have to go abroad, when in 2RRF we have the strength of the Army being made up from people who are local, as is the regimental tradition.Moreover, I would point out to the Minister that there has been criticism of the decision from top-ranking figures, who state that the abolition of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers will not stand up to public scrutiny.
	I stated at the beginning of my speech that the motion is not against the brave Scottish soldiers, which is true. However, in the north-east there is a fear that the referendum on Scottish independence will see the Government favouring Scotland over the north-east, in order to keep Scotland in the Union. I do not want to see Scotland leave the UK, nor do I want to see my region pay any economic or social price to ensure that we maintain the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom must be fair and honest to all its people, in all its regions. However, if Scotland becomes independent, it is possible that such a small country will not be able to sustain five battalions, nor will the remaining UK be able to be properly served by the 25 remaining battalions.
	In summary, the feelings of everyone who supports the motion are expressed in the words of Major Chester Potts:
	“‘Quo Fata Vocant’ (Whither the Fates call) is the regimental motto of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers. Wherever the fates have called we have been there and shed our blood in the defence of the country. We have fought the nation’s enemies for nearly 350 years now. We never expected our greatest enemy, and architect of our demise would be our own Government.”

Alan Beith: I welcome the work of the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) in securing this debate and leading the
	campaign. I do not think that there will ever be a cause in his parliamentary career that is dearer to his heart than this one, as an ex-Fusilier.
	Alnwick in my constituency is the traditional heartland of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, which is one of the parent regiments of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. In Alnwick, the red and white hackle is a familiar sight, especially on St George’s day. It was a particularly welcome sight on the streets of London this morning—so much so that it caused me to miss a question in the House, because I was with the large numbers of Fusiliers outside, whom we were so pleased to welcome here. The regimental museum is also in Alnwick. People in Northumberland, as in other parts of the country, have watched with pride as they have seen what are often frightening television shots showing members of the Fusiliers serving in so many of the increasingly televised conflicts that we have seen in recent years—in Iraq, Kosovo and Afghanistan, and of course on the streets of Northern Ireland as well.
	The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is one of the best recruited regiments in the British Army, and the recruitment figures demonstrate that. That is what has led a number of us, such as the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay, to get into correspondence with the Ministry of Defence and with Ministers as soon as the decision was made. It appears from MOD figures that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has consistently had the best recruitment record over the period that the figures cover, apart for the final year. It has the best track record on being at or near establishment over the last few years. Indeed, the Ministry of Defence admits that the figures for 2010-11 are artificially low, owing to a nine-month pause in infantry training, which affected regiments differently, depending on where in the year their training slots were in the infantry training centre programme. When that feature is added in, we see that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has a superb recruitment record. That led us to pursue the matter further with Ministers and to seek a further response from them.
	However, that response came in words carefully tailored by the Minister’s civil servants—the reply I received was from the Minister for the Armed Forces, who is in his place. He wrote to say:
	“As I am sure you will appreciate this was a complicated piece of work and for this reason I am unable to provide the detailed information for recruitment catchment areas that you sought,”
	although he then drew my attention to various websites where we could look at some of the sources on which the work was based, which we did. There were probably a number of mistakes in that work. I strongly suspect that the modern county of Northumberland was used in references to Northumberland as a recruiting area, rather than the county that stretches from Tweed to Tyne, which is the traditional Northumberland Fusiliers recruiting area, which also includes substantial urban areas. However, the letter went on to demonstrate quite clearly that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers should not be one of the five battalions that go, saying:
	“After the removal of four battalions, the method for predicting future sustainability became less statistically discerning.”
	Let us think about that. I think it should win a “Yes Minister” prize for obfuscatory circumlocution—or, to put it another way, dodging the issue with fancy words. A little further, the letter says:
	“Therefore to determine the fifth battalion to be removed from the order of battle required the application of criteria that went wider than demographics”—
	in other words, “We told the officials to find some other reason which would enable us to disband the 2nd Battalion.” The letter continued:
	“Historical manning performance and the need to maintain equity of opportunity meant that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers…was the next appropriate regiment”.
	What that “equity of opportunity” is I do not know, but it certainly does not apply to those who wish to serve in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in the north-east of England or the many other recruiting areas that have been mentioned today.
	I also want to talk about the extraordinary consequence of creating a single-battalion regiment, which is in defiance of policy to date. In the last round of changes, under the previous Government, there was an explicit desire to get away from the idea of single-battalion regiments. For example, in his letter to the Chief of the General Staff, Brigadier Paterson, the Colonel of the regiment, sets out the position:
	“During the last Options For Change the Army Board stated that large Regiments were the future for the infantry for all the well rehearsed arguments of operational capability and sustainability…What has changed for that policy to be reversed and for single battalions to be created deliberately?...Single Battalions fail to meet the criteria of sustainability…neither do they offer the variety and career opportunities of larger Regiments.”
	We have been through the process of losing cap badges before in Northumberland, because my constituency is also the regimental headquarters of the King’s Own Scottish Borderers, which lost its cap badge when it was amalgamated with a less well recruited regiment—the Royal Scots—to form a battalion in the Royal Regiment of Scotland. Indeed, one of the arguments strongly used then was the argument against single-battalion regiments, yet here we are, creating one.
	The other important consequence we must consider, which I would like to mention in the brief time available to me, is the consequence for the Territorial Army. In 39 years in Parliament, I have seen the TA in my area go up and down and up and down as changes of policy have led to changes in the extent to which use was made of the TA. We cannot do it like that, however, because that does not build up the core of officers and non-commissioned officers needed to run a really efficient TA. Remarkable things have been achieved, and TA soldiers have given wonderful service in regular units in all the conflicts that we have mentioned, but we are now expecting a major TA expansion without having the people in place to ensure that the necessary training and officer management are available for the increased force.
	We all know why this decision has been taken. Political reasons took the place of military logic, and in such a blindingly obvious way that I do not know how anyone in the Ministry of Defence thought that anybody would be fooled by it. How did they imagine that nobody would spot what was happening a mile off?

Bob Stewart: May I put to my right hon. Friend the possibility that the decision was made not in the Ministry of Defence but in another street—namely, Downing street?

Alan Beith: I am familiar, from my various spheres of work in the House, with the way in which missives from Downing street can bring about sudden changes
	in the development of policy, and it would be no surprise if evidence emerged that that had happened in this case. This is the wrong decision, for the wrong reasons and with the wrong results for the efficiency of the Army and the defence and security of this country.

Kevan Jones: I also begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and the Backbench Business Committee on securing this debate. I also pay tribute to the Royal Fusiliers. As a Newcastle city councillor, I was always conscious of the tremendous contribution that they made, and I remember the well-turned-out serving and former members of the Fusiliers who attended the Remembrance Sunday events. As a Defence Minister, I also saw the tremendous work that they did on the ground in theatres such as Afghanistan. The hon. Gentleman mentioned their history of bravery, sacrifice and courage, and I concur with his comments on that. The Fusiliers remain a constant source of pride in the north-east, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has said, as well as in Manchester, London and Birmingham. The local communities in those areas have great pride in the Fusiliers.
	Our concern is that the decision to disband the 2nd Battalion the Royal Fusiliers derives from a rushed defence review and an inadequate Army reform plan, known as Army 2020. The basis of any review should be sustainability and value for money.

James Gray: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the way in which these matters should be decided. Will he cast his mind back to 2004, when he was a Defence Minister? A total of 19 battalions were closed or amalgamated at that time, and there was no defence review then.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman will remember that the decisions to make those changes were made by the Army during its restructuring. They were not made for political reasons; such decisions have been made for many reasons over many decades.

David Hamilton: I must ask my hon. Friend not to fall into the trap that so many others have fallen into—namely, of setting one against another. We should all be arguing that a major mistake is being made, and that we cannot allow that to happen. If the regiment’s numbers fall below a critical mass, it will not be able to recruit when it needs to.

Kevan Jones: Indeed, and the decision was budget-led, rather than being made in the best interests of the Army.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: I will not, because of the time limit.
	The conclusions of any review should also take into account the long-term strategic objectives that will be in the interests of this country, but neither Army 2020 not the strategic defence and security review did so. The SDSR was rendered out of date within weeks of being written by events in Libya, with equipment that had
	been scrapped weeks before being brought back into service. Army 2020 has got rid not only of some of the British Army’s best battalions, but of some of the bravest and most dedicated members of the armed forces. The Minister must explain what his criteria are, and how he is going to maintain the necessary skills, even though many have already been lost.
	We are told that the numbers have to be cut, but I want to concentrate on the way in which that is being done. There was confusion this summer as the Government let the process linger on, allowing rumours and uncertainty to continue, mainly to save the Prime Minister the embarrassment of making this announcement before Armed Forces day. There have also been substantial cuts in the numbers of our armed forces personnel. Let us remember that, when in opposition in the last few years before the general election, the Conservatives were calling for a larger Army and a larger Navy with more personnel. They have achieved exactly the opposite since they have been in power. They are saying one thing and doing another. [ Interruption. ] I will come to the question of budgets in a minute, if the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) will just hold his water.
	These decisions are resulting in the Government having a credibility deficit on defence matters, not only with the public but with our armed forces. It is no wonder that there is confusion. The planning assumptions in the SDSR were based on an Army whose manpower was 95,000. Will the Minister tell us whether those assumptions are still being achieved, now that the number has been reduced to 82,000? Will he also be precise about the time scale for the build-up of the reserves? It has already been pointed out that there could be a capability gap in that area. I pay tribute to the members of our reserve forces. It is not surprising to discover from the continuous attitude survey of the armed forces that morale is at an all-time low.
	The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay talked about the criteria that had been applied when making the decisions. Serious questions need to be asked about how and why they were made.

Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: No, I will not. I would if I could get extra time—[ Interruption. ] No, I could not. I have already taken two interventions; those are the rules.
	We are told that the units that were having the greatest recruitment difficulties would be abolished. The 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment was only six short of its full establishment, and the 2nd Battalion the Royal Fusiliers was only eight short. However, other battalions with much less favourable recruitment records were maintained. It is no wonder that the honorary colonel of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Fusiliers said that the decision to axe his battalion would not “best serve” the armed forces and
	“cannot be presented as the best or most sensible military option.”
	It has been pleasing to see the turn-out today outside Parliament, and I know the strength of feeling that exists in the north-east of England. My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) has already mentioned the tremendous campaign being run by the Newcastle Journal andthe Evening Chronicle. We are seeing the ad hoc nature of decision making in whole
	areas of defence. The fact that Ministers have announced further reductions, over and above the numbers proposed in the SDSR, shows the short-sightedness of their proposals. We said when the SDSR was produced that it was not a blueprint for our strategic future so much as a Treasury-led defence review.
	I have already paid tribute to our reservists. The Secretary of State has said that the proposal to back-fill the Army with reservists presents a risk. The fact that the only announcement he has made so far is that he is going to change the name of the Territorial Army leaves questions unanswered. There has been no clarification on training, or on whether employment law needs to be changed, as is quite likely if people are to be released from their employment to serve in the armed forces. So there are still a lot of loose ends, and there will be a capability gap if we are not careful. It is quite clear that Government policy is about deficit reduction and not about what is in the best interest of this country’s defence.
	I will touch on the thorny issue of budgets, because we are told that the cuts are justified because of the big, bad Labour Government who left the Ministry of Defence with a £38 billion black hole. From this Dispatch Box, I have repeatedly asked the Government to explain this. The Public Accounts Committee has asked them to explain it, too, but to date nothing is forthcoming. I will be happy to hear, when the Minister replies to the debate—

Andrew Robathan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Kevan Jones: No, I will not.

Andrew Robathan: Why not?

Kevan Jones: Because I do not have the time. I shall wait with anticipation for the first ever breakdown of this figure. As I was saying, this has been the justification for the cuts that we have seen. It is quite clear what has to be done: if we are to take these cuts, the Government must set the record straight and be honest not only with the British public but with our brave servicemen and women.
	Historic battalions are being axed for short-term savings without any coherent strategy for our armed forces. We have no confidence that the abolition of battalions, such as the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is either in the best interests of the country or is being done on a fair basis. Until Ministers fully explain the criteria behind Army 2020 that justify the abolition of these regiments; until they clarify the reforms to the reserves and the rebasing of forces in Germany on which we still await explanation; and until they are more honest about the state of MOD budget—simply coming here to say that the budget is unbalanced is not good enough—it will be difficult for the Government to have any credibility on defence. More importantly, the people who are quite rightly campaigning against this decision will think that decisions have been taken in an ad hoc way, without taking into consideration the interests of either the 2nd Battalion or of this country’s defence.

Crispin Blunt: I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) have made the case for the 2RRF in the context of the current review extremely powerfully. I am not entirely sure that they were wholly served by the arguments of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), whose assault on the supporting arms could be described only as unfortunate. I would have thought that he among others would understand that the armed services, the Army, depend on team work between the different armed services and between the teeth arms and all the supporting arms. They all have an extremely important role to play.
	When on coming into office the Government were faced with financial stringency, decisions about the number of infantry battalions as opposed to arm or core regiments, as opposed to engineers, were among the wretched decisions that Defence Ministers then had to take. The point I am about to make is beautifully illustrated by the Public Gallery, which I have never seen looking more impressive. The Officers of the House deserve congratulation on imposing a little bit of discipline up there. If I were the Defence Minister, I might find it quite intimidating, but the view presented in the Gallery makes one think about the wonderful institution that we are discussing today.
	Anyone such as me who has had the privilege of serving in the Army understands the essential element of regimental identity. I was lucky enough to serve during the 1980s when I was only training to fight and die alongside my colleagues. Tragically, since 1990, far too many times that training has had to be turned into reality. That is what the deliberate creation of identity within Army fighting units is about. When Ministers are faced with wretchedly uncomfortable decisions about how to reshape the Army as times change and as warfare and the balance between the arms changes, we run straight into the political difficulty surrounding issues of identity.
	The Ministry of Defence and the chiefs of staff have attempted to put in place some basis for making choices, but the toxin in the issue has already been alluded to. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has explained, this decision has been about political calculation, not about military logic. I believe that these decisions have not been taken by the chiefs. I know from my own experience just how painful it is when one’s regiment is amalgamated. For those who have ceased serving—they, of course, will have spent 20 to 30 years in service—these issues will be at everyone’s heart. For those who are currently serving—their service is likely to be shorter—they will be concerned but they will turn to the right and get on with whatever organisation they are placed in, in order to do their duty for Queen and country.
	Issues of identity, graphically represented here today, are incredibly important. I think that my hon. Friend has made his case when it comes to explaining how the decisions have been taken in this particular round. These are incredibly difficult decisions for the Minister for the Armed Forces and his colleagues, although the point has been made that we cannot be entirely sure that it was him who took them.
	This brings us to the issue of national sentiment. I shall now do the strategic equivalent of invading Russia and China, and take aim at Joanna Lumley and the Ghurkha lobby. I think it is a particular pity that we are talking about the disbandment of a British line infantry battalion when there are battalions of, frankly, foreign mercenaries still in our Army. The national sentiment attached to the Ghurkhas is, of course, entirely proper. Their century-plus service to our country is beyond compare, but it is many senses now an historic anachronism. There is 100 years-plus of sentiment associated with them, which led to the then Government being defeated on a measure dealing with the Ghurkhas in the last days of the last Administration.

James Gray: I strongly support the campaign and the debate, but I think it will be extremely unfortunate if we allow the failure of the Government to do their first duty to defend the realm by preserving our armed forces to descend into a battle between whether we prefer the Ghurkhas, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the Loamshires or whatever. We should be saying that the Army will be too small at 82,000 and that these cuts are unacceptable, as we cannot defend the realm as a result of them. We must not allow ourselves to set one regiment against another.

Crispin Blunt: It becomes an issue about identity in the end. With parts of the United Kingdom such as South Yorkshire providing the recruits for the Fusiliers or the north-east providing recruits for the Light Dragoons and so forth, there is an important issue of identity and then of wider public policy in relation to having a recruiting regime in another country, bringing Nepalese soldiers into the British Army. That was fine when, frankly, the Ghurkhas were cheap. They were paid less than their equivalents—their pensions cost less, too—and there was a deal. It meant that these soldiers went back to Nepal, highly trained to be really good citizens of enormous value to Nepal. We have changed the rules through sentiment. In my judgment, we now have the most expensive infantry in the British Army supporting a training organisation in Nepal, which is quite limited in what it can do in comparison with British line infantry whose future we are debating today. That poses real public policy problems that we should be brave enough to address; we need to be brave enough to work through the sentiment. Of course there is enormous sentimental attachment to the Ghurkhas.

Ian Mearns: For the information of the House, much as I want to save the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the Ghurkha regiments have been recipients of the Victoria Cross on no fewer than 26 occasions. I think the hon. Gentleman maligns the Ghurkhas with his words today.

Crispin Blunt: I am not maligning them, and I am not maligning their historic contribution. I am acknowledging that contribution. However, our public policy is now to support the right of Nepalese families to come to the UK as a result of their service to the Crown.

Kevan Jones: You voted for it.

Crispin Blunt: Yes, I did, and I was wrong. I am happy to put on record that I regret it. One of the consequences is today’s debate, and another is the fact that we have done Nepal no favours by taking some of its finest
	people into the British Army and giving them the right to settle here as a result of their service. The British Army, which is a fantastic training machine, is taking some of Nepal’s finest young men, and they are not returning to Nepal to give it the benefit of their Army training. Moreover, we are probably building up social problems of our own, because the population who are coming into the United Kingdom with their families are going to find it tough to adjust to life here.
	We have ended up with an expensive part of the infantry which is much more restricted in its employment than a British light infantry regiment such as the one that we are debating today, in the wake of a policy decision made on grounds of wholly understandable sentiment and for exactly the historic reasons alluded to by the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), including its awesome contribution during two world wars and the Falklands war. It is our responsibility here to try to exercise proper judgments about public interest and public policy. We need to decide what is the right thing to do, and what is in the defence interests of the United Kingdom.
	It is easy to be carried away by sentiment. If I did not think that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay had made his case in support of the 2nd battalion, I would not be supporting his motion today, because battalions have to face disbandment. I will of course listen to what is said by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but the fact is that we are having to trade off British tommies against Gurkha battalions because of national sentiment, and because decisions were made in Downing street for reasons that were political rather than connected with military logic. I can summarise the arguments presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay by saying that decisions such as this should always be based on military logic, not on political calculation.

Simon Danczuk: Let me begin by thanking the hon. and gallant Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for providing such strong leadership on this issue. It has been much appreciated. Let me also say that it is a delight to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt), who made some good and honest points.
	I am very pleased to see Rochdale veterans down here in London, and in Parliament. That gives me great pride; and it gives me great pride to speak in the debate, because there are few, if any, more important topics than this on which a Member of Parliament can speak. I do not make that point lightly, for debating issues relating to our armed forces and speaking about the men and women who sign up to defend our country and our way of life is critically important.
	As Rochdale’s Member of Parliament, I think it fair to say that few subjects for debate would take precedence over the subject of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Rochdale is sometimes associated with bad news stories, but one of the good stories about our town is its strong association with that regiment. Many of our young people join up with the Fusiliers, and it performs the important function of providing much-needed jobs in Rochdale.

Kevan Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not just about jobs? In the north-east as well, the regiment gives young people—men and women—life chances that they would not have in the communities from which they come, and in many cases it changes their lives for ever.

Simon Danczuk: I entirely agree. That is particularly important in places such as Rochdale, where the level of unemployment is unhealthily high.
	Hundreds, if not thousands, of people throughout our town have served in the Fusiliers, and continue their association with the regiment. Through the Royal British Legion and the Fusiliers Association, we regularly celebrate the commitment and dedication of these soldiers.

Jim Shannon: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on initiating the debate. As the only Northern Ireland Member present, I should like to record our thanks to the regiment for the work that it has done in Northern Ireland, for the distinction with which it has served, and also for its contribution to the peace process and where we are today, because it can take some credit for that.
	A retired major who had served for approximately 20 years approached me and told me that this was a disgrace. The force that he had signed up to had promised to take care of him and his family when he put his life on the line for his country, and now, through Government policy, his country was abandoning those who had sacrificed their physical and mental health in fulfilling Government policy. It was not their choice to fight in various different countries, but they were commanded to do it and they did it. Does my hon. Friend agree with the question that they ask—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I think that we have got the point.
	May I appeal to everyone? A lot of Members are taking a lot of interest in this very important subject. If interventions are short, they will all be able to contribute to the debate. The longer the interventions, the less likely it is that we shall hear all who wish to speak, and I believe that it is important for everyone to speak.

Simon Danczuk: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I think that it was also important for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) to put his point on the record.
	In 1947 Rochdale gave the Fusiliers the freedom of the borough, and the amount of pride that the regiment brings to the town cannot be overestimated. It is for all those reasons that Rochdalians are so appalled by the cutting of the 2nd Battalion. The strength of feeling has been made clear in our local newspaper, and I pay tribute to the excellent campaign led by the Rochdale Observer.
	Let me now turn to the politics of the issue. I must first say how pleased I am that there is cross-party support for our campaign to stop the axing of the 2nd Battalion. We all know now why the Government are doing it: it is because they do not want to upset the Scottish situation, and that is simply not good enough. The Fusiliers is one of the best-recruited regiments in the armed forces. It is clear that the decision to axe one of its battalions was not based on what those at the top
	of the Army think, but has more to do with a political fix that is intended to satisfy people concerned with the Scottish question.
	I have to say that probably one of the worst ways of reaching a decision in politics is to base that decision not on the facts, on what is best for the people of our country or on what is best for the long term, but on a short-term event that has no association with the armed forces. I urge the Government and the Minister to think again, and to reverse their decision to axe the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

David Nuttall: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents. For many of them, this issue is of extremely great importance and significance. It is a great pleasure to follow my neighbour, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Simon Danczuk), who speaks with great authority on this matter. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing this debate and the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for it to take place here in the main Chamber, rather than in Westminster Hall—that is crucial, particularly given the number of members of the public, specifically the Fusiliers, who want to view it.
	One of the first things that anyone who moves to the town of Bury, as I did, quickly realises is people’s enormous respect for and pride in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Families from right across the town have links in some way, down the years, with the Lancashire Fusiliers. Bury is home to the Fusiliers museum, which has recently been moved from its previous premises in the old barracks to a new site right in the town centre. I urge anyone who has not yet had the opportunity to visit the museum to do so as soon as possible. I also recommend that after visiting the museum they go outside to the small Gallipoli gardens, which contain the Lutyens memorial, and then take a short walk to the Bury parish church, the garrison church of the Lancashire Fusiliers, where a number of retired colours are on display. Every Wednesday at 1 pm the church holds a short service to commemorate all those soldiers, particular those from Bury, who have given their lives while serving in our armed forces and to remember all those now serving in our armed forces around the world who put their lives in danger to protect our freedom.
	Talking of freedom, the Lancashire Fusiliers—now the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—holds the freedom of not only the borough of Rochdale, but the borough of Bury and the neighbouring city of Salford, as the hon. Member for Rochdale mentioned.

Bob Stewart: My uncle was in the Lancashire Fusiliers and he got a distinguished service order with the regiment. It crosses my mind as we listen to my hon. Friend that there are so many Fusilier enclaves around the country. One battalion will have great difficulty covering everywhere in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers’ vast recruiting area, and that will be extremely sad. We need as many battalions as possible, and thus we need to have the 2nd Battalion back.

David Nuttall: My hon. Friend makes the valid point that the loss of the 2nd Battalion will result in great social and economic cost, with the loss of those opportunities for young men in towns such as Bury.
	The Fusiliers have a proud record of military achievements, and Fusiliers have been decorated many, many times down the years for their bravery and courage. Each year, on the Sunday nearest to 25 April, the town centre of Bury is brought to a standstill as the Fusiliers parade through the town, and a special service is held in the parish church to commemorate the tragic events of the morning of 25 April 1915, when hundreds of men were killed and wounded as the 1st Battalion landed on W beach at Gallipoli. On Gallipoli Sunday, the exploits on that morning are still remembered to this day. The exploits of the Fusiliers that day were so heroic that they were awarded six Victoria Crosses—this is often now famously referred to as the winning of “six VCs before breakfast”.
	However, I realise that past achievements alone are not sufficient reasons for not disbanding the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay set out in his excellent opening speech, there have to be—and there are—good military reasons why the 2nd Battalion should be retained. We must never forget why the Government have made these decisions. The defence budget must be balanced, and in the long term that will be for the benefit of our armed forces. In essence, though, politics is all about making choices—it is all about deciding on priorities. On this issue, I believe that the Government have made the wrong choice. There ought to be no higher priority than the defence of the realm. It cannot be right that, at a time when we are sending billions of pounds every year to pay for the bureaucratic monster in Brussels that is the European Union, we are sacrificing the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers here at home. I urge right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to support the motion.

Barbara Keeley: I congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate and on the way he opened it.
	I spoke in the pre-recess Adjournment debate on 17 July about the anger felt in Salford and across Greater Manchester about the Government’s decision to axe 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The Manchester Evening News has run a strong campaign urging the Government to rethink their plans. The campaign has attracted 15,000 people to sign petitions, including the petition of 10,000 handed in today to Downing street. Many former Fusiliers from Greater Manchester, including those from Salford whom I am pleased to have met, were on the march today. There is great strength of feeling in our area and today I shall talk about what the battalion means to people in Salford, and to one family in particular.
	We have heard, but it bears repeating, that the 2nd Battalion has a long and distinguished service history dating back to the Lancashire Fusiliers—indeed, Fusiliers first took that title in 1685 and have fought in every major engagement since. In 1968, when the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was formed from the four English Fusilier regiments, they inherited from the Lancashire Fusiliers a regimental history steeped in tradition. As the hon. and gallant Gentlemen said, the regiment won more Victoria Crosses in the great war than any other regiment: 19 of the heroes of the Lancashire Fusiliers were awarded
	the VC, including the six the hon. Member for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) just described who won the VC in the action at Gallipoli. Many of the regiment’s soldiers have given their lives fighting for this country.
	In 2009, the 2nd Battalion completed a tour in Afghanistan in which it lost seven men killed in action; others were wounded, some very seriously. Three of the seven died together in an explosion while on patrol near Sangin in Helmand province on 16 August 2009. One of them was Fusilier Simon Annis, from Salford. Simon and fellow Fusilier Louis Carter were trying to drag their injured comrade, Lance Corporal James Fullarton, to safety after a roadside bomb blast. As the pair lifted Lance Corporal Fullarton on to a stretcher, they triggered a second device, causing an explosion. All three soldiers died at the scene.
	Simon Annis was on his first operational tour. He was described by his commanding officer as follows:
	“Always at the heart of whatever was going on, it was no surprise to me that he died whilst trying to save his mortally wounded Section Commander. He should be seen as a shining example to the nation of what selfless commitment really means.”
	Simon was 22 years old and had been married for just one month before he deployed to Afghanistan. I met his parents, my constituents Ann and Peter Annis, when the 2nd Battalion had its homecoming parade from Afghanistan later in 2009. Salford people lined the streets to give the returning soldiers a warm welcome, and I was so proud to be at that parade and to meet Mr and Mrs Annis. When the news came through about the axing of the battalion in which her son had served, Simon’s mother commented:
	“Simon was so proud to serve in the battalion and now this feels like a smack in the face… Lads are still in Afghanistan and dying out in Afghanistan and the Army are talking about cuts and job losses. Morale must be at rock bottom.
	I look at Simon’s headstone at his grave and it says ‘2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers’. He was so proud to serve in the battalion.”
	This week, Mrs Annis told me her thoughts:
	“As the mother of a Fusilier who paid the ultimate sacrifice for his Queen, his country and his battalion, I can only see this decision as a betrayal of trust for the soldiers still serving and to the memory of the brave men who have given their lives while serving in this historically proud regiment.”
	She said that this is
	“a decision that surely cannot be justified with the recruitment figures for the battalion. This can only be seen as cost-cutting rather than restructuring.
	When I read the names on the Wall of Remembrance at the National Arboretum, I was immensely proud to be the mother of a young lad whose name appears alongside the names of such brave men from the 2nd Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.
	Over and over again I have heard government excuses and reasons why this battalion should be axed, yet I still see no valid reason.”
	She added:
	“I urge you to think and reconsider the decision.”
	I strongly support Mrs Annis’s views and, together with hon. Members across the House, am asking the Government to reconsider. As Mrs Annis said, the decision to axe the battalion feels like a betrayal of the memory of her son Simon and the other soldiers who have given their lives.
	There is a deep attachment in Salford and across Greater Manchester to the 2nd Battalion, which was
	formed from the Lancashire Fusiliers and has such a long and proud history of service to this country. It is linked to Salford and, as we have heard, to Bury, Rochdale and Manchester. The loss of the battalion at this time of higher unemployment in our area of Greater Manchester would significantly reduce the opportunities for local people who want to enter a career serving their country, as young Simon Annis did, and it would of course put 600 soldiers and officers at risk of being made redundant.
	I probably do not need to rehearse the key issue in the matter. As we have heard, the 2nd Battalion currently has a very good record on recruitment; it has 523 trained soldiers out of a maximum strength of 532. Brigadier David Paterson, the battalion’s honorary colonel, has described it as
	“the strongest in raw manning and deployable strength”.
	Surely that is a key factor. He also pointed out that the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is the only regiment set to grow over the next six months. Brigadier Paterson has questioned the criteria being used to single out the unit for cuts when it is actually in such a strong position for recruitment. It seems that officers who understand the situation do not agree with the reasoning behind the decision to axe the battalion. The previous Labour Government’s plans meant that the Army would not have ended up with single-battalion regiments. This Government’s plans leave regiments such as the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in a weaker position. When the hon. and gallant Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) spoke about that earlier, he called it a disgrace.
	I urge Ministers to reconsider the decision to axe the 2nd battalion. I hope that they will respect its proud history and valour, its current strong recruiting position and, most of all, the sacrifice of fallen Fusiliers such as Simon Annis. The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has had the freedom of the city of Salford since 1974. I and the people of Salford and Greater Manchester are very proud of the 2nd Battalion. Losing it would be a great loss to us. They are England’s finest.

Dan Byles: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I join colleagues in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and congratulating him on his campaign and on securing the debate. I have no intention of repeating the facts he laid out so clearly before the House. Instead, I wish briefly to flesh out the vital local perspective on such a decision, because the local angle is fundamentally important to a county regiment and local links with historical recruiting areas are the bedrock of the regimental system.
	When I was 11 years old I joined the Army cadets. My boots were a bit too big, my beret was rarely straight, I never really got the hang of putties—I am sure some Members present remember those—and I often struggled to look smart, but I remember clearly and proudly putting on my beret, with its distinctive red and white hackle, for the first time because, although I was just a cadet, I had joined the Fusiliers. It was a formative moment for me. My time as a cadet in Warwick
	genuinely changed my life. Before that moment I had no ambitions to join the Army, but as a direct result of my time as a cadet with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers I went on to join the regular Army and served for nine years, leaving with the rank of major. And so it is for many of our brave servicemen and women. The link with a local and much-loved regiment is the route into service life for many of our soldiers.
	In my constituency of North Warwickshire and Bedworth, the fate of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is not some distant, academic debate. The Fusiliers are a much-loved and integral part of the community. Bedworth is perhaps the only town in the country to hold a full armistice parade on 11 November every year, regardless of the day on which it falls. Last year more than 5,000 people attended. They do so because our community is fiercely proud of our veterans and our local regiment. Two years ago the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was awarded the freedom of the borough of Nuneaton and Bedworth.
	Sadly, our borough has seen its share of tragedy. In recent years, we have seen the deaths on operations of two local heroes—Fusilier Louis Carter and Sergeant Simon Valentine. Their sacrifice touched local people immeasurably. It is no exaggeration to say that the entire community came together on both occasions in grief and to support the families. Louis’s and Simon’s mothers are well known and loved locally, and I know that they are watching this debate with great interest and sadness.
	I am not standing here today asking the Government to abandon defence reforms completely. I have great sympathy with colleagues who have said there is no need to go ahead with the reforms at all. I share the views of many who have said that there are probably alternatives—that other parts of Government spending could be looked at again to ease what is having to be done in defence. However, I do not believe that it is practical or credible to say that the Ministry of Defence can escape any reform whatever.
	The Secretary of State has a difficult balancing act: to bring the MOD budget back on to a sustainable footing after many years of a growing financial black hole, regardless of how big that hole is; I know that people argue about that. Tragically, there is no part of the armed forces that has not made sacrifices and lost lives in recent years, and there are no easy decisions on this matter.
	Although I have specific concerns about the decision on the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, I understand the MOD’s difficulty. The difficult decisions must be made in the right way. Decisions about fighting units should be made by the Army itself, on sound military logic. What worries me is the clear impression that, for political reasons, well recruited English regiments are being sacrificed to save less well recruited regiments elsewhere.
	In addition, I share concerns raised by a number of colleagues at the apparent change of Ministry of Defence policy regarding multi-battalion regiments. In 2004, under the previous Government, when the Ministry of Defence was last making difficult decisions about axing and amalgamating regiments and battalions, General Sir Mike Jackson, the Chief of the General Staff at the time, made it clear that the future lay with multi-battalion regiments rather than single-battalion ones. They are
	more efficient and cost-effective and provide a more effective promotion structure for soldiers within a family of connected battalions. At that time, the single-battalion regiments were targeted and the multi-battalion regiments were preserved or created. I ask the Minister why that policy now appears to have changed.
	Many Fusiliers are seriously considering leaving the Army altogether rather than face being transferred to a Scottish battalion—as I understand it, the only option that members of the 2nd Battalion are being given once the 1st Battalion reaches capacity. There may be as few as 50 places available in the 1st Battalion to absorb members of the 2nd Battalion.
	I strongly urge the Secretary of State and Prime Minister to look at the decision again for the sake of the families, the communities and the soldiers of the 2nd Battalion, who face an uncertain future. Once a Fusilier, always a Fusilier.

David Anderson: I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on leading on this issue and on how he addressed the motion. As members of the Backbench Business Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), my parliamentary neighbour, and I were delighted to be asked to schedule this debate, which is timely.
	I have no direct history in the armed services but I have had experience in war zones. I spent quite a bit of time in Northern Ireland in the 1990s and in 2008 I was part of a delegation that went from this House to Baghdad. While we were there, we became subject to a mortar attack. I was led by a Gurkha to an air raid shelter. I was disgusted by the comments made by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr Blunt). I did not consider that soldier to be a foreign mercenary; I considered him to be a member of the British armed services taking care of me and the people I was with. How the hon. Gentleman contributed to this debate reflects badly on him.
	My father was a member of the armed forces for three days; having been a coal miner, he joined the RAF during the war but they sent him back saying, “You’re more important to us working in the mine than mending aeroplanes.” But two uncles of mine were prisoners of war—one who worked on the Burma railway and another, ironically, who left the coal mines in 1928 because he hated them, but was captured as a soldier as part of the rearguard action at Dunkirk and spent the next four years working in a coal mine in Poland under German occupation. Everyone in this House has heard about that history and can share in our appreciation for the service of these people over so many years. Colleagues from the north-east have already mentioned the tremendous support for the Fusiliers, who have a huge history and huge respect. I pay tribute to all those who have marched here, from whatever part of the country, but particularly those from our part of the world. We are immensely proud of what you have done in the past and what we hope you will continue to do in future.
	I want to get to the heart of the issue—the politics. I have spent a lifetime working in the public sector, and throughout that time I have seen various services used as a political football, including the health service, local
	government and the coal industry—and now the police and the fire service are in the front line of the debate about politics in public services—but I have never seen any of them being gerrymandered to the extent that has been happening in this debate. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) was absolutely right—the fingerprints of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are all over this debate. He is not just the part-time Chancellor of this country; he is a part-time political strategist. This is a man whose whole life has been involved in being political, as we see when we read his history. When he was 13 years old he changed his name from Gideon because he thought it was a disadvantage in getting on in life. Perhaps it was also because his nickname at school was Giddy.
	However, this is not a question of Giddy but “Diddy”. Did he interfere with the decision? Did he think it was a good tactic to try to placate the Scots by leaving them out of this mix? Did he give any thought to the impact on unemployment, now and in future, in regions like mine? Did he give any thought to the tremendous history of service and sacrifice that the Fusiliers have given to this nation? Did he care about the damage that these actions will cause? Did he feel so much contempt for the Scottish people that he thought they would be fooled by this sucker punch? Clearly he does not care about what is happening in relation to this issue; he is only interested in gaining pure party political and parliamentary advantage. That is a huge disservice to the people who are here today—people who we in this House ask not only to go and die for us but to go and kill for us. It is an absolute disgrace to treat them in this way when they deserve so much better.
	I was very proud to go and meet the marchers today, but I have previously met many marchers in London and other parts of the country, and I have been on many marches in my life, and I have to say that most of them have ended up in disappointment. I have seen this Government and other Governments ignore health workers, policemen, firefighters and many other public servants who have asked them to reconsider their view of how they are being treated. It is incumbent on all those of us who have stayed here for this debate to vote in the right way to give these glorious men and women, the Fusiliers, the chance not to join that list of disappointed public servants. We must support the motion, but that is not the end of it—we have to keep the pressure on to make sure that this decision is reversed and that we look at other ways to make these savings.

Penny Mordaunt: I draw the House’s attention to my interest as a member of the reserve forces. I apologise for not being here at the start of the debate because I have been serving on a Bill Committee, and will consequently keep my comments short.
	I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and the Backbench Business Committee for making this debate possible. It allows us not only to air and scrutinise the nitty-gritty of Army 2020, its objectives and processes, but to show that there are many of us in this place—Back Benchers and those on the Front Bench too—who understand why this process is so difficult and painful. I am sure that will be
	cold comfort to members and veterans of 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, but I hope that today brings them some comfort.
	Change—any change—is hard, but it is doubly so for our armed forces. Why? Because from the moment a person begins their training, in whichever service it is, everything they do is connected to the core values, philosophy, history, achievements and sacrifices of their unit or battalion and regiment. The deep emotional connection that such training creates has a very rational purpose—to produce soldiers, sailors and airmen with the courage to fight and win. Members of the Defence Committee and other hon. Members have monitored and are monitoring that process and the data underlying those decisions. In doing so, I have asked myself three key questions.
	First, are the reforms needed and is their scale justified? We all know, and often talk about the massive budget deficit that Ministers have had to deal with, but we do not often discuss its consequences. Poor financial management at the Ministry of Defence costs lives. The reforms are required, to ensure that our armed forces are never again short-changed in the kit or training that we provide, or in their pay, terms and conditions or support for their families.
	Secondly, how would I like these reforms to be done? I would want the services themselves to be in the driving seat, and it is my understanding that that has been the case. Thirdly, do I agree with the criteria against which the decisions have been made? The motion clearly does not, particularly the criteria that only one battalion should be lost per regiment and that there should be no deletion of cap badges. For the reasons that I gave at the start of my speech, and because I want a wide geographical presence for our armed forces in the United Kingdom, I am in favour of those criteria. However, despite disagreeing with that technical point in the motion, I am glad that it was tabled and that it has enabled this debate, and I hope that the House will not divide on it.
	We do not talk enough in this place about defence. I am grateful that today we have been able to remind this House and the country of the unique difficulty of the reforms to our armed forces, and that the debate has also enabled us to pay tribute, which I wholeheartedly do, to 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

Stephen Barclay: I had the privilege to serve, albeit briefly, with 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. As a Lancastrian I am well aware of the high regard in which the regiment is held by the local community, which is reflected in its successful levels of recruitment. I fully support the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and I will not detain the House by repeating the points that he skilfully made in highlighting the many flaws in the Government’s case. I want to address not the criteria, which my hon. Friend tackled, but the wider decision-making rationale that underpins the Government’s measure and that was at the heart of the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Sir Gerald Howarth), who is a distinguished former Ministry of Defence Minister, when he sought to justify why this cut is being made.
	First, if a measure such as this is to be positioned on the grounds of cost savings, the first thing one might expect is clarity on how much is being saved. However, when I asked the House of Commons Library that question this morning, answer came there none—it could not tell me. A rough estimate might put the figure at £25 million a year, but the least we might expect from the Minister’s closing remarks is some certainty, if the measure is being justified on cost grounds, as to how much is being saved.
	Secondly, the MOD suggests that this cut, which is out of step with the criteria applied to other battalions, is needed to address the defence overspend; but the saving is puny in the context of overall MOD spending, when one considers the reputational impact, the history and the esteem of the front-line service that is being cut.
	Let me put this in context and draw the House’s attention to some recent National Audit Office reports. Last year the MOD increased its defence inventory at the same time as it was cutting the size of its armed forces, so we are buying more kit for fewer troops, even though we already had, for example, 10 years’ supply of overalls. We have 54 years’ worth of equipment for Nimrod, even though the plane has already been scrapped. The sums of money being wasted are not insignificant. The MOD spent £2.4 billion on non-explosive inventory, even though it already had five years’ worth of such items in stock—we spent £2.4 billion buying things when we already had five years’ worth of supplies. We are now trying to get rid of some—£1.4 billion-worth—of the stock that we bought by mistake. It is costing £277 million a year just to store the stock that we do not want, and which we should never have bought. That puts the saving that is being made by the decision on 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in context.
	My second question to the Minister is therefore why, when the National Audit Office report in June—the very time when this cut was being proposed—could identify savings of that order, officials in the Department could not do more to avoid the necessity of cutting this battalion.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend is making a good point about overstocking. We are bearing down on that enormously. He will understand that, not having been in government between 1997 and 2010, we did not order most of this kit. We are selling off the kit so that we have to spend less money on storage, and we are spending less money on unnecessary kit; but he will also understand that the armed forces need good equipment, especially given the ongoing situation in Afghanistan.

Stephen Barclay: I am willing to recognise the big strides that the Government have taken in making those savings. However, we are spending vast sums of money on kit of which we have five years of supplies. The Minister says that this is about equipping our troops better, but we are not addressing that point by buying a higher specification of kit if we are buying things that we do not need. That was one of the key findings of the National Audit Office report.
	If Ministers are not convinced that more could be done on logistics and supplies, perhaps I could put this saving of about £25 million in the wider context of our defence procurement. Again, I am willing to acknowledge the huge strides that have been taken by Ministers to get
	to grips with procurement. However, the 15 largest defence projects have overspent their initial budgets by £6 billion. The saving from this cut is a fraction of 1% of that, although we cannot know exactly how much it is because we have not had the figure. It is a tiny amount, and yet it is hitting the front line—our fighting units.
	The case that I put to colleagues today is that surely more could be done, notwithstanding the efforts that are being made, to increase the scale, intensity and speed of implementation of the savings in logistics, supply and procurement. This decision does not provide value for money. It is too modest, it uses flawed criteria and the scope of delivering savings elsewhere means that it would be a mistake for the Government to go ahead with it. That is reflected in the comments from Members from all parts of the House today.
	I have never voted against my Government, but I support my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) and will do so if the motion is put to a vote. I hope that Ministers will listen to the strength of the arguments, look at the findings of the National Audit Office and deliver the required savings from other areas of the defence budget.

Richard Drax: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Stephen Barclay). I would also like to sing the praises of my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for bringing this topic before the Chamber.
	Seldom has this Chamber—I mean the Chamber in its entirety—been so full of so many gentlemen of such distinction.

Kevan Jones: And women.

Richard Drax: And women, of course, but I am talking about those in the Gallery, whom I am not allowed to mention, although I just have. It is a great pleasure to be here today.
	First, I am angry at the Opposition, because of their years of profligacy, their spending on social experiments and their continual reduction in spending on defence.

Kevan Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Drax: No, I will not.
	As a consequence of that spending, when the cuts have come, the defence of this country has not been on a level playing field.
	As Members can imagine, I am not exactly happy with the Government, either. It is our solemn duty in this place to protect our country, her people and our dependants, and to meet all our commitments, not least our NATO ones. Our ability to do that is now seriously in doubt. It is clear to me, and to many others, that the defence spending review was carried out by accountants, not according to military logic. For example, we are now preparing to have a higher proportion of Territorial Army personnel. I have the highest respect for the TA, but if we are to reduce our forces, we need a higher, not lower proportion of regulars. Consequently, we now find ourselves making decisions for political expediency. As a former soldier, I find that shameful.
	This is all about priorities. As I said, the priority should be to defend our country and her people. Our priorities are wrong. We have plenty of scope to cut state expenditure, which the Government have said continually that they will do. We have started down that road, but we have a long way to go. Throwing money at the Soviet-style bureaucracy that some people call the EU, and at foreign aid to states that practise genocide, is utter madness at a time when we are cutting our armed services, and it has put us in the terrible situation that we are in today.
	I have been in this political game, if that is what it is, for two and a half years, and I am tired of our selling out on integrity, honesty and the defence of our country. We have to wake up, all of us, and defend our country in this House with every ounce of our being. If we do not, we betray our people and regiments that are sadly under threat today. That cannot go on. The people of this country will not accept it, and nor will I. Nor, I know, will many colleagues on both sides of the House. We have to face our responsibilities seriously, put politics to one side and look at the future of our country—our country, our country, our country—and not at our careers and whether we will be re-elected in five years’ time or whenever. Our country comes first, our careers come second.
	We must reverse the Government’s decision. I will vote against the Government today, as I have on many occasions already. I take no pride in doing that, but I am not necessarily here to support the Government. I am here to support my constituents and what I believe in—my country.

Mark Pawsey: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Richard Drax) and to be part of the Warwickshire tail-end to this debate. There is clearly strong support for the motion throughout the House, and I add my congratulations to those that colleagues have paid to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for the diligence that he has shown in the campaign, the way in which he has brought people together and the convincing case that he has made for reconsidering the decision to disband the battalion.
	I wish to speak about two matters. The first is the impact of the decision on my constituency, and the second, which we cannot avoid, is why we are in the position that we face today. Unlike many gallant colleagues who have spoken today, before my arrival in Westminster two and a half years ago I knew little of our armed services. My background had not given me that contact, so I was keen to join the armed forces parliamentary scheme to learn more. I have become attached to the Army. Through briefings on the state of our forces, visits to military establishments and, above all, the opportunity to speak to servicemen of all ranks, I have, thanks to that scheme, come to understand the bonds of loyalty and shared history between servicemen that were mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr Blunt) and for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt). I have also come to understand why these issues are so important to so many of those who are involved in the services.
	Of course, these issues are important to my constituents, too, as the regiment was formed when the Royal Warwickshire Regiment joined with others in 1968.
	Rugby has many connections between the town and the regiment. Rugby is a two-tier local authority and my constituency is covered by two district councils, both of which, along with the county council, have passed motions in full council to call for the decision to be reprieved. I am sure that other local authorities in areas covered by the regiment have done the same.
	The mayor of Rugby, Councillor Miss Kathryn Lawrence, wrote to the Defence Secretary on 26 September and advised him that the council had unanimously passed the following notice of motion:
	“Rugby Borough Council calls upon the Ministry of Defence to reconsider its proposals to disband the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and to continue to support the success and leadership shown by the Regiment in recruiting, training and retaining loyal soldiers in the County of Warwickshire.”
	The council stressed the high regard in which the people of Rugby held the regiment. As a former member of the authority, I echo that and endorse those comments.
	My constituency includes the village of Bulkington, which has strong connections to the armed forces and falls under Nuneaton and Bedworth borough council. That council passed a resolution on 16 October opposing the abolition of the regiment and calling on MPs in Warwickshire, including myself, to oppose the proposal in the House of Commons, which I know we will do.
	Warwickshire county council passed its resolution on 25 September, drawing attention to the signing of the armed forces community covenant in Warwick earlier this year. The connection between my constituency and those of my colleagues and the regiment is strong, as it is in Northumberland, the broader west midlands, London, south Lancashire and greater Manchester. We all have families who are linked to its survival.

Bob Stewart: I remind the House that the Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers, the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, was also the parent regiment of Field Marshal Montgomery. Perhaps he will be spinning in his grave.

Mark Pawsey: I thank my hon. Friend for reminding us all of the role of such a distinguished member of the armed forces.
	In Warwickshire, we were proud to host the regiment on its homecoming parade when it returned to the UK after its tour of Afghanistan in 2009. It marched through Coventry, Nuneaton, Leamington Spa and Stratford-on-Avon, as well as my constituency and home town of Rugby. On Friday 1 May, I was proud to be in the crowds outside Rugby town hall, applauding its achievements while on active service.
	We must not forget why the Government have been faced with difficult decisions. When we came to office, the new Government were confronted with not only a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget but the fact that no review of defence had taken place over the previous 12 years. That delay and the putting off of key decisions for so long has led to a much more severe adjustment than would otherwise have been necessary.
	I fully understand that the structural changes necessary within the Army have been made to ensure we continue to have a force admired throughout the world that is
	properly funded. I believe the long-term future of our armed forces is far safer in the hands of this Government than it was in those of the previous Government.
	This is an important debate and for the sake of my constituents and this battalion, I urge the Minister to reconsider this decision and to join colleagues from both sides of the House.

Chris White: It is a privilege to follow a Warwickshire colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), and I endorse his comments. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his work in securing both this debate and such cross-party support for what we are trying to achieve.
	The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has deep roots in my constituency, as in many constituencies across the country. I am reluctant to mention Montgomery again, but Warwick is certainly a place of which he would have had fond memories. Over the centuries, the regiment has served with honour and courage across the world, fighting to preserve our freedom and security against the greatest of odds. I was a cadet although not a soldier, and I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) was also a cadet in my constituency. The British Army has been so successful because of its regimental structure. Soldiers not only serve their Queen and country, but they are part of a community and family and feel an attachment to that. No matter where in the world they are serving, they can feel a piece of home.
	As a Member of Parliament, I have been privileged to meet serving soldiers in Afghanistan, and I know how much pride they take in their regimental duties and identities back at home. From speaking to veterans, I also know that that bond spreads across the generations, and that it is felt not just by soldiers, but among civilians. Tens of thousands of people across Warwickshire have signed petitions in the regiment’s recruiting areas to save the 2nd Battalion. The regiment is part of our community and way of life, and that emotional tie is important to a modern, voluntary Army.
	At the weekend, I was particularly moved to hear a local vicar, Reverend Brown, speak about the “golden thread” of the Fusiliers’ regimental history, which he called a “true community” that is timeless and binds generations of service personnel together. It is something I have heard repeatedly in many representations received from constituents.
	I know that we are facing difficult economic times, and that as a consequence the Government must look carefully at the structure of our armed forces. I believe, however, that there has been no adequate explanation for why the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers must be removed from the order of battle, and that the Ministry of Defence should look again at the proposals.
	We should be basing these decisions not on historical issues but on the future, and at present, the 2nd Battalion is not one of the worst recruiting units but one of the best. Out of a maximum strength of 532, it has 523 trained men and women, and many more are waiting to join. Moreover, it is recruiting out of some of the fastest growing populations in the country. Warwickshire grew
	at 8% a year during the decade between 2001 and 2011—above the average for England and Wales—and Greater London’s population increased by 14% between 2001 and 2011. The 2nd Battalion is not recruiting from parts of the country that are in terminal demographic decline, but from areas where population growth is likely to be at its strongest. I understand that the Government want to give all parts of the country a chance to serve in our armed forces, and that is why it is so confusing that they have chosen to reduce opportunities for service in areas with the fastest population growth where demand is likely to be highest.
	There is also a real concern that by paring back the 2nd Battalion, the regiment as a whole may wither. Once the damage has been done to local morale and the community behind a regiment, there is danger that the whole future of the regiment may be affected. That would be a damaging blow to our armed forces as a whole.
	I believe there is a clear military case to be made to keep the 2nd Battalion, but there is also an emotional one. My constituents want the 2nd Battalion to remain, as I am sure the constituents of many hon. Members on both sides of the House do. They want that important part of our community to be preserved, and I have a duty to represent their very strongly held feelings.

Marcus Jones: It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) in this important debate, and it gives me great pride to be one of four Warwickshire MPs on the Government Benches in the debate. Warwickshire is one of the smallest counties in our country, but we make strong representations for it with great pride. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on a tremendous campaign. He should be very proud of his efforts.
	When the Secretary of State made his initial statement, I said that my constituents would be deeply concerned over the announcement to disband 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. I also said that my constituents would welcome the retention of the Gurkha regiments. I stand by those comments, but since the initial statement, I have spoken to many of my constituents. They are not just deeply concerned, but absolutely devastated that 2RRF is to be disbanded.
	My constituents have a deep affection for the regiment, which they demonstrated in September 2010, when the regiment was given the rare honour of freedom of our borough. Thousands of local people lined the streets proudly to welcome home 200 brave soldiers from the 2nd Battalion. Not even an unsavoury element from the English Defence League could dampen the enthusiasm and pride of my constituents on that day. It was with that same degree of pride that I felt humbled recently when I marched through Nuneaton town centre shoulder to shoulder with Fusilier veterans in support of their campaign to save the 2nd Battalion. It is with pleasure and pride that I am wearing the regiment’s tie, which I have been asked by veterans to wear.
	The passion and pride of my constituents stems from the long history of people from Nuneaton joining that proud regiment of Fusiliers. My constituents were pained
	when two brave young Fusiliers, Fusilier Louis Carter and Sergeant Simon Valentine, were taken from us recently in the conflict in Afghanistan. The proud mothers of both Louis Carter and Simon Valentine are strong supporters of this campaign. Mrs Carter and Mrs Valentine, along with many of my constituents, will be watching this debate with great interest.
	I stress that I understand the challenges that the Secretary of State and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), have faced since coming to office. I understand and agree that changes to our armed forces are inevitable given the deficit, the debt and the black hole in the defence budget that we faced when we came to office. I have supported many of those changes, however unpalatable they were.
	That said, many of the changes were made using the principle of evidence-based policy. The decision to disband 2RRF follows that principle to an extent, but the evidence-based approach is skewed by what seems to be a more political criterion overlying it. I fully agree that the main criterion and determinant in the decision-making process should be military capability and sustainability. It seems somewhat strange, particularly on the point of sustainability, that 2RRF can fall on the basis of that criterion when five less sustainable regiments are being maintained. By adding the criterion of allowing a single regiment to lose a maximum of one battalion and the principle of losing no cap badges, the Government have moved from evidence-based policy that depends on military grounds to a policy that looks like a political fix. That has muddied the waters.
	The only conclusion to be drawn is that the political will goes beyond the Government’s headline policy. I fully appreciate the assertion, in view of the facts presented thus far, that 2RRF is the fall guy for the Scottish regiments, which have a far poorer recruiting record. With the Scottish independence question before us, this is a persuasive theory which is hard not to believe. That said, I do not advocate abandoning the Scottish regiments. On the contrary, we need to be more imaginative. That seems to have been the case with previous reorganisations. I would be interested in the Minister’s explaining why regimental troop numbers across the review cannot be considered to see whether 2RRF can be retained. That approach would help with the sustainability of other regiments that are probably far less successful at recruiting.
	Whatever method we use to resolve the impasse, today’s debate shows the strength of feeling across the country among Members representing constituencies such as mine. The 2nd Battalion deserves a far better hearing than it is getting, not only on the grounds of sentiment but on factual grounds of capability and sustainability. I appeal to the Secretary of State to reconsider how the decision was arrived at and to support 2RRF.

Tobias Ellwood: It is a pleasure to be the tail-end Charlie in the debate, other than the Minister, of course.
	Like others, I begin by paying tribute to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for securing the debate. It has prompted a wonderful outburst of regimental ties, which cannot be
	a bad thing, and has resulted in probably the smartest turnout in the Public Gallery that we have seen for years. Although we are not allowed to mention the Public Gallery, the whole House pays tribute to the service and gallantry of those seated up there. [Hon. Members: “You’ve done it twice now!”] I mentioned it twice, but I think I got away with it.

Dawn Primarolo: Order. The hon. Gentleman has got away with it twice, but he knows the rules, and I am sure he will not test the patience of the House any further but instead make his excellent contribution to the debate.

Tobias Ellwood: I have been punished with time taken away from me as well.
	This debate has been a healthy and valuable reminder of the important role that our armed forces play not only in meeting our national and international obligations but in maintaining links with society and community, which my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) also stressed. The armed forces are also the force of last resort to which we turn when there are problems with, for example, flooding, foot and mouth and, most recently, the Olympics—let us remember their last-minute contribution there.
	Sadly, the Opposition did not recognise, register or apologise for the dire financial situation that led to these tough decisions having to be made and the fact that there was a specific funding gap of £38 billion.

Kevan Jones: indicated  dissent .

Tobias Ellwood: I am happy to show the hon. Gentleman the National Audit Office report specifying that exact figure and showing that the Opposition stole money from future budgets.

Kevan Jones: The NAO report does not state that. It states that the only way to get to a £36 billion figure on the procurement budget is with flat cash. Without it, the figure would be about £6 billion. I suggest he read the report first.

Tobias Ellwood: We have read the report carefully. It is true that the last Government took money from future budgets, and of course that money cannot be spent twice. It is also true that in the good times prior to 2007 the then Government cut the defence budget in real terms, while other budgets across the board went up.

Kevan Jones: Yes, but I remember the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members at the general election calling for a larger Army and Navy, but what have they done in power? They have cut, cut, cut.

Tobias Ellwood: We did not call for a larger armed forces at the election itself. It was our intention. It is where we would like to go. When we made these announcements, we were not expecting Labour to have ruined the Treasury numbers, as it did.
	As has been repeated again and again, Labour made a mess of something else. I refer to the madness of its procurement strategy, which wasted billions of pounds
	in overruns. The worst of it was delaying the carrier build by one year, which cost £1 billion alone. Given that the capitation cost of a brigade is £100 million, let us think how many battalions we could have saved. To take an operational perspective, for years our troops in Afghanistan were forced to use Snatch Land Rovers, but suddenly the last Government woke up to the fact that they were not adequate and there was a flurry of buying off the shelf. The Cougar, the Mastiff, the Ridgback—all these vehicles were purchased off the shelf, wasting huge sums of money, while our armed forces suffered on the front line. All those funding issues had a knock-on effect on the decisions we are debating today and the decisions for the future, not only on battalion and brigades, but on the order of battle.
	I am an infanteer—I served in the Royal Green Jackets, another regiment that disappeared under the last Government—but I am also a national politician. We are all national politicians, and we must consider the capability of our entire armed forces—the demand to save ships; the demand to save planes, such as the Harrier, which has been debated by this House many times; the demand to save intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance capability; and, of course, the demand to save regiments, not least my own. As we have heard, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has an amazingly proud history, dating back to James II —I am sorry that the Father of the House is not here to confirm that—and it has had an impact not just in its own area, but right across Britain as a whole. When the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers was formed, it was given the most up-to-date weapon of the day, the fusil, which gave it its name, and in the first world war it had a total of 196 battalions in operation. How different the picture is today.
	We have heard some powerful arguments, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister says in response to the support we have heard for the Fusiliers. However, I would also say to him—I hope he listens carefully to this proposal—that if it is the Government’s intention to reconfigure the balance of our armed forces between regular forces and the Territorial Army more towards the Australian and American models and to increase the size of Territorial Army units, and if it is also the Minister’s intention to decide to disband the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, then why not allow this fine battalion to configure immediately into a Territorial Army unit? I absolutely accept that that is not an ideal solution, but it would prevent that footprint in history and the contribution made by this amazing battalion from disappearing in their entirety.

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend will know that the Territorial review is continuing. We have had the review and we are now looking at the details, but I assure him that we will look carefully at that proposal as we expand the Territorial Army, or the reserve.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister. I appreciate that that is not the solution that many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, are looking for, but if it is the Government’s intention to reduce the size of our battalions, my proposal would seem to be one way of maintaining the future prosperity and history of this wonderful regiment.

Bob Stewart: That is a very good idea. The regiment can go into purdah—that is, it can go into the reserve Army for a while—and if we need it, it can come back. That has happened in the past and it can happen again, and it is an extremely good way to proceed.

Tobias Ellwood: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; I am grateful. I now look forward, as we all do, to hearing what the Minister has to say about this important subject.

Andrew Robathan: We have heard some very heartfelt, passionate and emotional contributions today. I do not criticise hon. Members for that emotion in any way; indeed, I have a great deal of sympathy for many of the points that have been raised.
	I would like first to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate, which has allowed so many people to contribute and make their points, which is very important in this House of Commons. I welcome this opportunity to explain the situation. We have come to these decisions, as has the Army, after a great deal of consideration and analysis. The British Army and the regiments concerned are now looking to get on with the difficult task of implementing the decisions, which, frankly, have not been palatable.
	In May 2010, when we entered government, we faced a dire financial situation. A £38 billion black hole, possibly a great deal more—

Kevan Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Robathan: Of course I will give way, although I must point out that the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to give way to me and would not do so, even though he had been told, on a piece of paper that I saw being slipped to him, that he could take as many interventions as he wanted.

Kevan Jones: That is not what I said at all. It is interesting to hear what the Minister is saying. He talks about the £38 billion, which he has never explained before at the Dispatch Box, and he is now telling the House that the figure could be bigger. How much bigger?

Andrew Robathan: The hon. Gentleman did not explain at all; he just said that he would not take any interventions. I can see the piece of paper there. Perhaps he would like to read what it says—

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I can probably help the Minister on this. The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) was under the impression that he was time-limited, which of course was not the case. That was not down to any information that he had at the time; it was while he was speaking that he believed he was time-limited. The Minister will have a slightly longer time. Perhaps we can sort this out across the Dispatch Box.

Andrew Robathan: Of course, Madam Deputy Speaker.
	The hon. Gentleman knows that the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), left a note saying that there was no money, and there is no money. We are working on producing a detailed analysis of the money, which will be made available to the Defence Committee at some stage. I am not quite sure where we have got to on that.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Robathan: Not for a third time. He would not give way even once. Can we crack on?
	We have to deal with that hole in the budget, and the hole in the defence budget, if we want to put the defence of this nation on a sound and sustainable footing—[ Interruption. ] The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) chunters away, but we cannot spend money that we do not have.

Kevan Jones: You don’t even know how much money you’ve got.

Andrew Robathan: As hon. Members will know from statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence—

Kevan Jones: You’re making it up.

Andrew Robathan: Have you finished?
	As hon. Members will know from statements made by the Secretary of State for Defence, the Ministry of Defence is now—for the first time I can remember—living within its means, and we can plan for the future with a much greater degree of certainty than was previously the case.

Kevan Jones: I find what the Minister is saying completely remarkable. He has just told us that he cannot explain the £38 billion. He has also told us that the figure could be bigger, and he is now saying that the defence budget is in balance. If he did not know how big the hole was in the first place, how the hell can he now claim that the budget is in balance? That is complete, incoherent nonsense.

Andrew Robathan: I do not think that this debate should be argued on party political grounds—

Kevan Jones: You started it.

Andrew Robathan: I regret very much the attitude of the hon. Gentleman. Others will look at the debate and decide whether he started it, or whether we did. Frankly, it is pathetic and childish to argue in such a way.

Graham Stringer: I sympathise with the Minister; as an ex-military person, he must be in an uncomfortable and lonely position. However, rather than having a debate about the nation’s finances, which would be more appropriate at another time, will he respond to the points that have been made on both sides of the House? What is his argument against the fact that the decision to get rid of the battalion was made on political grounds, and not on military grounds? That is the substantial point of the debate.

Andrew Robathan: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As it happens, I have a great regard for him, and I do not wish this to be a party political debate. I wish to talk about the future of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which has a very proud history.
	We are now living within our means, and we have a fully funded equipment programme and affordable armed forces. Reaching that position has required us to make hard, painful choices, which have included reducing the size of the regular Army. I have always said—I have heard it repeated two or three times in this debate—that the first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our mission endures, and it is to protect our country and its values and interests abroad and at home. To do this, we must meet the complex range of threats and challenges in a rapidly changing world. We must adapt to stay ahead and ensure that our people have what they need in order to do what we ask of them.

John Baron: I am pleased that the debate is returning to the substance of the motion about the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The Minister said that detailed analysis was undertaken to come to the basic decision to axe 2RRF. Will he explain the basis of that analysis, as the Secretary of State’s answers to written parliamentary questions make it very clear that other battalions had far worse recruitment and retention figures than the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers? On what basis, then, was this analysis undertaken?

Andrew Robathan: If I may, I will cover my hon. Friend’s points as they were made in his speech. My responses are written down here, and it is better that I give him a detailed analysis rather than provide one off the top of my head.
	While our armed forces might be smaller than before, they will still be able to reach across the world and operate across the full range of capabilities. We are reducing the size of the regular armed forces, but we are increasing the reserves, including an integrated element of the total land force of 120,000, with an extra £1.8 billion of investment in reserves, training and equipment.
	The Army has been both pragmatic and imaginative in responding to this very real challenge. The blueprint was decided upon by the Army and announced by the Defence Secretary on 5 July. This project we call Army 2020. For the first time, this provides a pathway to a fully integrated Army of regular and reserve forces that will be configured for high-end conflict, rapid reaction, UK engagement and upstream conflict prevention.

Stephen Barclay: Will my right hon. Friend address the point that the value of the defence inventory is currently £40.3 billion? Just this June, the National Audit Office said:
	“the Department is spending money on unnecessary levels of stock, which could be spent elsewhere in government.”
	We are talking about such a modest sum of money; can it not be found elsewhere?

Andrew Robathan: I have to confess to my hon. Friend that I do not deal with procurement measures. We have a defence reform project going on, which I think he will find addresses his point. I will ensure that he receives a letter from the Minister for Defence Equipment, Support and Technology, setting out a proper response.
	I think it would be better if we stuck with the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, because that is what people have come to speak about. Today, we have heard arguments about the withdrawal of 2RRF from the Army’s order of battle. Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I take any pleasure in the removal of any unit from the Army. I can assure hon. Members that we did not come into politics to reduce our armed forces. There is not a battalion or regiment in the current order of battle that does not have a proud history and significant battle honours. If, however, we are to create an affordable and balanced Army offering serious military capability into the future, a small number of those proud units and battalions will have to be withdrawn from the line.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) has been made aware of the reasons behind the Army Board’s decisions—and they were Army Board decisions, endorsed by Ministers. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate these reasons for the benefit of the House.

John Baron: Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Robathan: I am about to answer my hon. Friend’s questions; he might like to intervene again later.
	In redesigning the future Army, it was decided that five fewer regular infantry battalions were required than are currently in the order of battle. In deciding which of the current 36 battalions to withdraw, the Army—I repeat, the Army—applied a number of criteria. The first was to maintain a regimental system that was largely regionally aligned. The second was to ensure the sustainability of regiments according to the projected regional supply of recruits in the 2020 time frame. The third was to ensure proportionality of outcome across the infantry, with no cap badge deletions and with no regiment losing more than one battalion.
	Another key criterion, which Members who have served in the Army will understand, was to balance the whole infantry structure to maintain a variety of roles and parity of opportunity of experience for officers and soldiers. It was also important to take account of previous decisions on mergers and deletions, as well as historical manning performance. Finally, the Army wanted those who are currently serving to see this as fair and equitable. After all, it is those who are serving now, and those who are seeking to join the Army, who will make the change happen.
	Those criteria were determined by the Chief of the General Staff and by General Carter, who has led the Army 2020 review. After a period of consultation with Ministers, they constructed an objective, fair and transparent process that included the criteria, applying the military logic to which my hon. Friend referred.

John Baron: I appreciate the Minister’s generosity in giving way. Let me make it clear for the record that I know him well enough to be aware that he takes no pleasure in announcing these cuts. I do not doubt that at all: it is not what we are questioning. However, if there have to be cuts—and I personally think that the Government’s priorities are wrong; I think that such cuts should be made outside the MOD budget—they should be based on military logic, not on political calculation that is designed to save more poorly recruited Scottish battalions north of the border.
	In answers given to me by the Secretary of State and in answers to written parliamentary questions, it has been confirmed—confirmed in writing by the Secretary of State—that the five least sustainable battalions will be two from the Royal Regiment of Scotland, one from the Yorkshire Regiment, one from the Mercian Regiment and one from the Royal Welsh Regiment. That is military logic, as applied in a letter to me from the Secretary of State.

Andrew Robathan: As I have said, one of the criteria was that no regiment should lose more than one battalion. I shall explain shortly why the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers came into the frame.

Dan Byles: The Minister is an old military hand himself, so he will know the phrase “situating the estimate”. Let me explain for the benefit of those who are not military that it means setting the parameters deliberately in order to achieve the desired outcome. Does the Minister not recognise that there is a great deal of concern among Members in all parts of the House who believe that that is what has happened in this instance?

Andrew Robathan: I do recall the phrase, and that is not what has happened.
	Let me now explain in some detail how the application of the criteria that I listed earlier led us to the outcome announced on 5 July. Some of this may sound a little dry, but it is important for the House to understand the care that was taken in reaching these decisions.
	Drawing on demographic data for the age cohort across the United Kingdom from which infantry recruits are drawn—the 15-to-29 age group, according to the way in which the Office for National Statistics segments the population—and taking account of historical trends in terms of the percentage of that cohort who were likely to join the Army, an assessment was made of which regiments were likely to be the least sustainable in the future in their current configuration. That work also included a comparison of each regiment’s historical outflow so that the likely recruiting requirement could be determined. On that basis, the Army’s analysis showed that the regiments likely to be the least sustainable in future were the Royal Regiment of Scotland, the Yorkshire Regiment, the Mercian Regiment, and the Royal Welsh Regiment. It was therefore decided to move one battalion from each of those regiments.
	After the removal of the four battalions, and given the criterion that there should be no cap badge deletions and no regiment should lose more than one battalion, the method of predicting future sustainability, and therefore which battalion should be added to the four whose future had already been decided, became less statistically discerning. To put it another way, it was impossible to distinguish between a number of regiments on the basis of the future sustainability criterion alone.

Alan Beith: In his letter to me, the Minister used those figures and there was a prediction that the Royal Regiment of Scotland would be one and three quarter battalions short on sustainability in the future. When we compare the risk to operability of that level of difficulty with the predictions for the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, do we not find that the military logic is overpowering?

Andrew Robathan: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. However, in these difficult decisions, certain criteria were applied, one of which was that there should be only one battalion taken away from each regiment. That is what, I fear, trumped the good point that he makes.

Patrick Mercer: I am conscious that the Minister finds this an exceedingly painful process, but can he explain something? We were told a few years ago that it was deeply undesirable for regiments to continue as one-battalion organisations, for reasons relating to the career structures and all sorts of military logic, which I did not necessarily agree with. How was it that just a few years ago new regiments were invented and curious names were developed, yet now, a short time later, all of that is being stood on its head?

Andrew Robathan: I do not think that I made that point, because I was not the person involved at the time. Since my hon. Friend’s time in the armed forces, and mine, people have moved a great deal more between divisions and between larger regiments. Where we are talking about a one-battalion regiment in a division, people cross over between the regiments in the division. That is certainly happening much more than it used to.
	Determining the fifth battalion to be withdrawn required the application of criteria that went wider than demographics. Remembering the imperative of having no regiment losing more than one battalion, the Army discounted those regiments that were already losing a battalion, such as the Royal Scots, and those which were single-battalion regiments. That meant that the choice came down to a battalion from the Princess of Wales’s Royal Regiment, the Duke of Lancaster’s Regiment, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, the Royal Anglian Regiment or The Rifles—the Parachute Regiment was excluded on the grounds of its specific role. Taking account of the need to maintain equity of opportunity across the infantry divisions, the Army decided—I stress that it was the Army that decided this—that it should be the Queen’s Division that lost a battalion. That was because it had six battalions whereas other divisions would be left with only four or five. Taking account of historical manning performance—since the previous reorganisation of the infantry, in 2007, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has had average undermanning of 13.3%—and the fact that the Fusiliers is a regiment with two battalions, it was considered the most appropriate from within the Queen’s Division from which to withdraw a battalion.
	I would like to pay tribute to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. It has a proud history and it will continue as a regiment with a proud history. It has served in every major campaign since 1674, up to and including Afghanistan. I have visited the regimental museum and the headquarters in the Tower of London with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay—in fact, I went back only last month. I know the history of this proud regiment.
	As some in this Chamber may know, in Northern Ireland Second Lieutenant Winthrop devised a clever way of finding hidden caches. I remember being taught this in Northern Ireland, and it allowed us to find hidden IRA weapons. He was a Fusilier, and that is someone more recently who influenced military thinking. I served with the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in the first
	Gulf war, and my mother’s uncle was killed in 1916 while serving in the Fusiliers. I mention that because we all hugely respect the past and present members of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. I fully understand that this decision came as a great disappointment to those serving with the regiment and those, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, with connections to it.

John Baron: I welcome the Minister’s warm words, but I suggest to him that we do not just want warm words—we want action. Clearly he is basing his whole argument on the idea that regimental losses should be limited to one battalion. That is exceptionally questionable, and it is a complete about-turn on the thinking of the reorganisation that took place only six years ago, when four cap badges and six battalions were amalgamated into larger regiments. Can he not understand that it is far more disruptive for a two-battalion regiment—a well-recruited one—to lose one battalion than it is for a five-battalion regiment that has trouble sustaining two battalions, as has been admitted by the MOD, to maintain those two battalions? Can he not see the logic here? Can he not see why the MOD’s limitation of one battalion loss per regiment is so illogical?

Andrew Robathan: My hon. Friend is an intelligent person, but I have made the point several times that the Army decided that it wanted to withdraw only one battalion from each regiment, and that is why this decision was reached.
	I know that the decision is a great disappointment to many people, but it was simply not possible to save every unit, given the financial situation in which we found ourselves. I hope that what I have explained is a fair, transparent and equitable process, which produced the right outcome, in difficult circumstances, for the Army. The MOD has now placed in the Library of the House the detailed data the Army used in reaching its decision on which battalions to remove from the order of battle.
	I think I have dealt with the question of Scotland. We did not take another battalion out of the Royal Scots, because that would have been to the detriment of the criterion that only one battalion should be taken from each regiment. My hon. Friend and others have suggested that the decisions were not taken on wholly military grounds and that a degree of political influence was brought to bear that has resulted in English regiments “losing out”—their words—to the Royal Regiment of Scotland, but the advice from the Chief of the General Staff and his Army 2020 team was clear: the effect on the regimental structure and the wider community of losing more than one battalion would magnify the impact of any change and thus impact on the subsequent healing process. I hope that that advice and the rest of the objective criteria the Army applied to the review will put minds at rest. As the Government have made clear on a number of occasions, we are making no plans on the basis of an independent Scotland, as we firmly believe—a belief that I know is shared on both sides of the House—that the majority of Scottish people will continue to support the Union in any referendum.
	Cap badges and uniforms are important, but hon. Members should realise that they evolve and change over the years, and indeed have done so during our
	lifetimes. I have worn many different cap badges and I believe that people adapt very quickly and are proud of the regiments and the units in which they serve. I assure all hon. Members here today that we are aware of the justifiably fierce pride and loyalty felt by local communities to their locally recruited battalions, wherever that might be across the UK.
	I come back to the real reason behind the reductions, which is the fiscal mess we inherited in 2010. The process has been painful for the Government. I reiterate: no Defence Minister came into government to reduce our armed forces. However, balancing the black hole inherited from the previous Government required difficult decisions to reach our current more balanced and affordable position. The Army—and it is the Army—has played an intelligent and constructive part in the exercise and has had to make some very tough decisions, but it is never possible to make such significant changes without causing some pain somewhere. The plan that has been announced, while difficult for some to accept, offers a balanced and fair way to maintain a robust regimental system into the future.
	I reiterate that the Fusiliers—the proud Royal Regiment of Fusiliers—will go on as a regiment. We are not abolishing the Fusiliers, as some seem to have implied. I know that the Army as a whole understands that and is now getting on with implementing the new structures in the positive and pragmatic way that anybody who knows the Army would expect. My sincere hope is that hon. Members, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay, who instigated this debate, can now allow the Army to do so.

John Baron: Perhaps we should make it absolutely clear that no one really wants to make cuts to the armed forces, particularly in these increasingly dangerous times. However, if cuts have to be made, our contention is that military logic should prevail rather than political calculation about saving more poorly recruited Scottish battalions ahead of the Scottish referendum. I have made it clear that I do not believe that any battalion should be cut, Scottish or otherwise, but the Government’s decision is a bad one.
	The decision is a bad one, not because we say so but because it is clear from responses to letters and inquiries to the MOD and from written parliamentary answers—the evidence is there for all to see—that 2RRF should not be in this position because its recruitment and retention record is excellent. The original five battalions, which were the least sustainable ones, did not include 2RRF. I cannot help but conclude that this rather silly rule that regimental losses should be limited to one battalion is a political fix ahead of the Scottish referendum, because only six years ago four cap badges and six battalions were amalgamated into one regiment. All the talk then was about how larger regiments were the way forward because they provided a varied career structure and sustainability. That is the right way to go about it.
	The sudden introduction, out of the blue, of the rule about limiting regimental losses to one battalion is utter nonsense, and it is just by coincidence that it has happened to save both Scottish battalions that there were earmarked for closure. The MOD admits that the Royal Regiment of Scotland should be two battalions short. It is two
	battalions down. It is illogical for the Government to say that they will maintain them when they cannot help themselves. As for the Government’s claim that only one battalion, the Scottish battalion, will be lost, that is also untrue, as the Minister very well knows, because it will only be downsized. No Scottish battalions will be lost.
	I repeat that I do not want any battalions to be lost in these cuts. I think that we should be prioritising our spending outside the MOD budget better. I have questioned aid to India, unfashionable though that may be, and the billions we are pouring into the European Union. This is a bad decision. It is based not on military logic but on political calculation. It is my intention, with your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, to do what I can to divide the House on the issue.

Question put.
	The House divided:
	Ayes 57, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House opposes the disbandment of the 2nd Battalion, the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers (2RRF); notes that 2RRF is the only infantry battalion being cut that was not initially due for disbandment on military grounds; further notes that 2RRF was instead caught by the Government’s additional criteria of only one battalion loss per regiment and no deletion of cap-badges, which has resulted in more poorly-recruited Scottish battalions being saved; further notes the social and economic costs of disbandment; and urges the Government to reverse its decision.

Intercept Evidence

Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab): I beg to move,
	That this House notes with concern that the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan may never commence under the current arrangements for the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests; and calls on the Government to review its approach to open justice, in particular the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests.
	As a rule, when someone dies in questionable circumstances an inquest is held in order to establish the cause of death and set out the events that led up to it. In a society that prides itself on being fair and just, it is inconceivable that the circumstances of such a death should leave questions unanswered. Moreover, establishing the events that lead to death at the hands of the state in particular is integral to maintaining a relationship between state and citizens. That has been the case in our country since 1194, when the precedent for coroners’ inquests began. Whereas an inquiry considers broader issues of public concern, the role of an inquest is to provide a detailed account of how an individual came to die in suspicious circumstances or at the hands of the state. An inquest is an invaluable tool in both answering questions and, importantly, learning lessons.
	On its own, a public inquiry is insufficient in helping us piece together the circumstances in which an individual has died at the hands of the state. We witnessed that following the Hillsborough tragedy and I am afraid that we are witnessing it again, this time in my constituency of Tottenham, where the family of a man shot by police await a public inquest into his death. As the law stands, they cannot even be told why an inquest cannot take place.
	The riots that followed the shooting of Mark Duggan on 6 August 2011 portrayed most vividly and, indeed, violently the frustration caused by questions left unanswered. Not everyone who rioted in the days following Mark Duggan’s death was motivated by a sense of injustice, but if we look back at those events we will see that it is clear that the shooting was a touch paper—a spark that began the rioting.
	More than one year on, the denial of an inquest is an affront to the families of those who have lost a relative in circumstances that remain unexplained, confining them to a lifetime of uncertainty. This is not the first time that an inquest has been denied following a fatal shooting. I refer hon. Members to the case of Azelle Rodney, a young man shot by the police in 2005. It has been suggested that the inquest into Mr Rodney’s death was withdrawn from court as a direct consequence of section 17 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. Crucial material detailing the events leading up to Azelle Rodney being shot was deemed inadmissible in court and key evidence was redacted into meaningless fragments. A public inquiry headed by a High Court judge began just last month. Mr Rodney’s mother has been excluded from hearings on more than one occasion and the inquiry chair has ruled that her legal team cannot be shown surveillance video footage. His family’s questions about his death remain unanswered to this day.
	The denial of an inquest is an affront not just to the families concerned, but to everybody who lost relatives in last year’s riots; to everybody whose businesses and
	homes were destroyed and who remain without a home or a livelihood; and to every one of us who believes in the need for open justice—for justice to be done and for it to be seen to be done. This country has experience of difficult cases that require inquests, such as the 7/7 bombings, the Marchioness and, most recently, the deaths of Ian Tomlinson and Jean Charles de Menezes. All of those cases required inquests not just to get to the truth of what happened, but to learn lessons on behalf of the state and those who act for it.
	Just yesterday it was revealed that the trial of Kevin Hutchinson-Foster—the man charged with supplying Mark Duggan with a handgun 15 minutes before he was shot by police—has ended without verdict. Now more than ever we must ensure that there is an open, judge-led inquest into the death of Mark Duggan.
	The denial of a public inquest not only damages the outcome of this case, but casts a shadow over our entire judicial system. Under RIPA, we cannot know whether it is the inadmissibility of intercept evidence that prevents an inquest from being held. Mark Duggan’s family will have to accept that an inquest may not take place, but they cannot be told why it has been denied. What sort of climate of suspicion—of cloaks and daggers—do we create when evidence of vital importance is presented not in an open court in front of a jury, coroner or judge, but behind closed doors? What message does that send, not just to the family of Mark Duggan, but to the riot victims who lost their homes, businesses and livelihoods in the wake of the riots? If an open inquiry cannot be held into the events leading up to Mark Duggan’s death, closed justice is not really justice at all.
	I remind the House that, despite £2 million-worth of damage being caused by last year’s riots, not a single inquiry has or will be held. A paltry sum of less than £150,000 was spent on the Riots Communities and Victims Panel. That contrasts with the staggering £6 million and counting that has been spent on the Leveson inquiry. What hope is there of reaching an accurate and comprehensive account of the events that led to the riots, when it has been made clear that an inquiry, let alone an inquest, is simply not on the coalition Government’s list of priorities?
	Securing justice is not always about finding an answer; it can be about asking the questions. When evidence is withheld from the public for no good reason, we cannot claim that justice has been sought. An honest, open and fair society seeks to overcome obstacles in the path of finding justice for its citizens. When justice is obstructed due to misguided legislation, as in this case, it falls to politicians to clear the way. No political party has a monopoly on justice. Finding out what caused an individual to die in suspicious circumstances is not a partisan issue. That is why I am grateful for the support of hon. Members and in particular the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who is in his place. That this debate is taking place is testimony to the cross-party will to ensure that public inquests remain a pillar of the British judicial system.
	There is a principle in our justice system known as the rule of admissibility. It means that any evidence deemed relevant to a trial should be presented in court. That eminently reasonable legal principle forms the basis not just of fully informed trials, but of the open, fair and impartial judicial system that we, as British citizens, are entitled to expect. We cannot claim that we
	operate such a judicial system when existing legislation means that crucial bits of evidence remain inadmissible in court.
	We certainly cannot claim judicial superiority when we are the only country in the world that does not permit the use of material gathered by interception in court. In the United States, intercept evidence has secured the conviction of al-Qaeda plotters and the most slippery of New York Mafia dons. At an international level, intercept evidence has allowed the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia to convict Yugoslav war criminals.
	The ban on intercept material in British courts contradicts not just our notions of judicial fairness, but our common sense. We are repeatedly reminded of the importance of intercept evidence, most often in the context of terrorism and national security, but increasingly in tackling domestic crime. It is staggering that when hours and weeks of time and great resources are put into gathering this evidence, particularly by our intelligence services, resulting in the detection of crime and the arrest of a criminal, most of the incriminating evidence has to remain hidden. Cases that involve intercept material are invariably complex. How many terrorists, drug dealers, paedophiles and other criminals have eluded conviction not because of a lack of evidence but because that evidence could not be heard in a court?
	That cases should fall at the last hurdle is an immense frustration to anyone who has a desire to see justice achieved, not least police forces themselves. It was with that sense of frustration that I wanted to bring the matter to the House. I am, however, far from the first individual to do so. Since as far back as 2005, MPs, Lords, lawyers and even Attorneys-General have bravely stepped up and asked for the ban to be lifted, yet the sword in the stone of section 17 of RIPA stands stuck fast.
	Between 2005 and 2008, no fewer than seven reports on the issue were submitted to Ministers. It reared its head in 2008 in the counter-terrorism debate, and again in debates on the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. In a display of remarkable consensus, the Metropolitan police, the Independent Police Complaints Commission, the Crown Prosecution Service, Governments and Home Secretaries have expressed a desire to amend section 17. Indeed, the issue has united the most stubborn of bedfellows, as the coalition agreement commits to finding
	“a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.”
	I remind the House of the Privy Council review also known as the Chilcot report, commissioned in 2007 to review the use of intercept evidence. A welcome step, we might say, but unfortunately not a bold enough one. A series of reports have confirmed what any Member can tell us—that there is political consensus in favour of permitting the use of intercept evidence in court. On receiving the initial inquiry report in 2009, the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson), stated:
	“The issues involved are complex and difficult, and addressing them commensurately challenging. But the importance of our interception capabilities to national security and public protection means that there can be no short cuts.”
	With all due respect to him, after seven years in a three-year period, I think we can say that no short cuts had been taken at all.
	Yet here we are again, debating in “Groundhog Day” fashion an issue that already has cross-party support. The Prime Minister himself has declared that he would prefer to use intercept evidence than not use it. On visiting New York following the conviction of John Gotti, the former Attorney-General Lord Goldsmith hailed the use of intercept evidence as a “vital tool”. Eminent Law Lords such as Lord Lloyd of Berwick have challenged the ban as well. If the use of intercept material promotes national security, combats domestic crime and maintains faith in public expressions of justice, why does its use in court remain prohibited?
	Although our attention today is focused on section 17 of RIPA, it was that Act’s predecessor, the Interception of Communications Act 1985, that implemented the statutory ban on the use of intercept material in court. In 1985, the UK found herself condemned by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg for permitting the tapping of phone calls. The use of intercept evidence to convict an antiques dealer selling goods of dubious origin led to the use of such evidence being deemed to fall short of the European convention on human rights. Without the cloak of a legal or administrative framework, the UK found herself exposed. Chastised by Strasbourg, the then Prime Minister, Thatcher, passed the 1985 Act, which contained the provision that evidence obtained by interception was inadmissible in court.
	Section 17 of RIPA superseded the 1985 Act, ensuring that the exclusion of intercept material from legal proceedings was maintained. So strongly worded was that Act that it went even further, banning not just the use of intercept material but the disclosure that any sort of interception may have taken place. The passing of those successive Acts is the legislative equivalent of using a sledgehammer to crack a nut: unwieldy in the hands of its users, undiscriminating in its target and wholly unsuited to the job. All I ask is for us to allow exceptions to section 17, but for them to be enshrined in legislation.
	If we really want to secure and maintain open justice, the ability to use intercept material in court must become more than an exception that results from hours of detailed and all-too-painful legal wrangling. Unless the legislation changes, we will find ourselves in a similar situation in the Mark Duggan case, still waiting for a public inquest years after the shooting took place. We will be in a judicial environment in which a public inquiry is seen as nothing more than a sop or an exercise in appeasement. I need to underline the question of why an inquiry of that nature following such a death—it led to four days of rioting—cannot be appropriate. The creep into major domestic cases must be of great concern to our country. Unless we legislate to ensure the admissibility of intercept evidence in court, our instruments of justice will remain insufficiently sharp to penetrate to the core of the most challenging of cases.
	Members of the intelligence service and section 17 defenders, such as Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale, herself a distinguished officer in the intelligence services, have expressed a fear that the use of intercept evidence could jeopardise interception techniques. It is claimed that by sharing intercept material with the public during an inquest we risk arming the jihadist, the drug smuggler and the people trafficker with the foreknowledge of how we intend to get them into court in the first place.
	As has been noted, one does not exactly need high level disclosure to know that the police monitor phone lines as a surveillance method. Does that mean that potential criminals no longer communicate by phone, however? Of course not. The most rookie burglar knows of fingerprint detection, but does that mean that criminals are no longer caught in that way, even in the age of gloves? Of course it does not.
	It is claimed that 21st century spookery is so developed that no one except a select few can fully grasp the complexity of interception techniques. That might be true and of course I do not doubt the advances made by or skills of our intelligence services and I certainly do not want to compromise the hugely important work done by GCHQ in particular. I emphasise, however, that permitting the use of intercept material in court will in no way contradict the hard work done by those services. By making a distinction between domestic crimes and terrorism, we can ensure that the British judicial system can make use of intercept evidence without compromising national security. I refer to America, where different procedures determine how intercept evidence is used in court depending on whether the material was gathered by law enforcement agencies or intelligence agencies.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am very interested in my right hon. Friend’s last point and he is making a powerful case for allowing intercept evidence to be used in court. However, he says that there might be exceptions for counter-terrorism. Might there be exceptions in serious and organised crime cases so that they can be exempt from automatic disclosure? There is a difference between evidence that should be allowable and used in court and cases when authorities need to prevent the source of their evidence from being disclosed to prevent the exposure of how it is obtained.

David Lammy: My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course, serious and organised crime is dealt with by a particular agency and it would be for a Home Secretary to determine whether it would fall within the scope of any provisions or not.
	Let me move on to the other steps that can be taken to ensure that we do not compromise and that we separate the material from the means. Successive Home Secretaries have been concerned about the means, when there is really a need to separate the means from the material provided.

Alan Beith: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman and for the particular problem that has led him to take this position. I hope, however, that he does not underestimate the complexity of the task—something I have also been engaged in—of finding a way to achieve what we all agree is desirable. A combination of the disclosure requirements that operate in English courts, and article 6 of the European convention on human rights, could lead to massive requirements for retention and transcribing, and that could impair the operating efficiency of our security and intelligence services.

David Lammy: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman who I know has huge experience in these matters. Inquests have been with us since shortly after the Domesday
	Book, and if other major jurisdictions can crack this complexity, surely we in our developed democracy should be able to do the same.
	Surveillance evidence has long been admissible in court. The police can eavesdrop on a conversation in a pub, and use the evidence in court. Someone’s phone conversation can be recorded on a microphone hidden under a desk and played back in court. If something is recorded, it is fine. There is only a problem if the conversation is contemporaneous, which seems strange.
	If someone’s call is intercepted in a foreign country where intercept evidence is admissible—that is the case in every country other than the United Kingdom—that material can come before the courts. That is absurd. If sensitive material gathered by any other means can be heard in court, from transcripts of telephone surveillance to the account of an informant—informants are obviously important in this context—why can we not find a way to make contemporaneous intercept evidence admissible, handling the sensitivity of that material with due care?
	We must dispose of the notion that intercept evidence is categorically more sensitive than evidence gathered by other means such as surveillance or informants. Evidence of any other kind is handled based on the sensitivity of the material, but that is not so with intercept evidence, which is the only evidence that has a blanket, categorical ban. In practice, it means that evidence from a phone interception of a conversation detailing a planned robbery is categorically inadmissible in court. At the same time, detection of a human trafficking ring through highly sensitive material provided by an informant faces no such categorical ban.
	Of course, no hon. Member would wish to compromise the gathering of intelligence, but I wish to put to one side the notion that because maintaining records of intercept evidence may require logistical consideration, it is not worth doing. If intercept evidence recorded in another country is good enough for the eyes and ears of the British public, how can we maintain the position that evidence intercepted on our soil is not? If America, Canada and Australia allow intercept material to be used in court, one might suppose that the logistical hurdles are not insurmountable.
	It simply does not hold true that removing the ban imposed by section 17 of RIPA would hamper the secret services from developing interception technology without exposing their methods to the public. Admitting intercept evidence in court would not restrict the way such evidence is collected any more than existing legislation. The British justice system already has a system that allows prosecutors to disclose material without disclosing its source. Given the strong similarity between admissible surveillance evidence and inadmissible intercept evidence, surely a similar system of disclosure could be applied. Indeed, a framework for making intercept evidence permissible in court already exists in public interest immunity plus. Public interest immunity is already used in cases where admissible surveillance data are heard. I see no reason why a similar safeguard cannot be applied to intercept evidence that has been made admissible in court. As with all difficult tasks, implementing a comprehensive safeguard will not be straightforward, but we cannot afford to give up on challenging the ban.
	Yes, the Government have received legal advice against public interest immunity plus in the light of European Court of Human Rights rulings on similar cases from Finland in 2008, and public interest immunity may need refining, but to take the ECHR rulings as a definitive rejection of the principle of a Home Secretary or senior judge assessing the material and deciding which bit is relevant would go too far.
	The alternative in amending the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 would allow a coroner to fulfil their role in determining the cause of death in mysterious circumstances. Such amendments were proposed in the Lords to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009. They proposed that the coroner nominated by the chief coroner should be able to see the intercept material and make a decision on its disclosure. Material would only be redacted when strictly necessary and in proportion to the public interest. If we wanted to go further, we could confine the role to the senior coroner in such cases.
	I am not concerned with the question whether the state should intercept private communications between individuals. My concern lies with the ludicrous situation that there is a statutory ban on using material gathered through interception in court, despite a clear legal case for admitting it. That is a bizarre situation that leaves a family in my constituency without a full inquest into the death of their son more than a year since he was killed. That stubbornness might prevent there ever being an inquest into the death of Mark Duggan. That is unconscionable following the scenes of last August.
	As it stands, section 17 represents legislation that obstructs, restricts and obfuscates—bad legislation. It is the House’s duty to return to the matter. Will the Minister say when Chilcot will end the reviewing period—it seems to have gone on for ever? The arrangements are small but necessary, and I hope we can make them. I do not want to compromise the important interception work that is done in cases throughout the country, but we should at least allow a senior coroner or judge, or the Home Secretary, through the use of public interest immunity, to look at the material and redact what is necessary to ensure that the means are not compromised.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I intend to call the winding-up speeches at 4.30 pm. Will hon. Members therefore be conscious that other Members wish to take part in the debate?

David Davis: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), who has done a sterling job of making the basic case, and, perhaps in some ways more importantly, of defending the interests and rights of his constituents, some of whom feel very aggrieved after the events of last year. I shall speak more briefly than he did and try to wrap around his argument, but hon. Members should forgive me if I repeat one or two things he has said.
	The primary distinction between the great democracies of modern times and the totalitarian states is how they treat their citizens. We believe we treat our citizens in a civilised way compared with the totalitarian states—they
	will imprison, torture and, in the final analysis, kill without trail, whether they are Soviet or Nazi states, or any of the other species or flavours of totalitarian state that we have been unfortunate to see in past decades.
	Emotionally, we might believe that we do not do those things because we are nicer people than they are, but the reason for the distinction—between totalitarian states and our state and similar ones such as America—is simply the rule of law. If colleagues want to test that, I suggest they consider the operations of the British state when it has operated outside the constraints of the rule of law, such as in Kenya during the Mau Mau rebellion, when well brought up, well educated, and no doubt expensively educated, men—it is always men—acted with a brutality that would have done justice to some of the totalitarian states to which I have referred. The rule of law prevents that by exposing acts of the state to judicial challenge and questioning, and that process is never more important than when a citizen of the state dies at the hands of an agency of the state. Since the 1997 general election, 38 people have been killed in Britain by police forces. In most cases, the inquest gave a verdict of lawful killing. In one that I am aware of, the Jean Charles de Menezes case, there was an open verdict, and some, of course, are still outstanding.
	Although I will be critical of agencies of the state, I want to make one point: I am not criticising police officers operating on the front line as parts of the armed response units. Their job is sometimes terrifying. I was critical of what happened in the Jean Charles de Menezes case, but the policemen involved went on to a tube train not knowing whether the man they were seeking to apprehend was carrying a bomb that would have killed everybody on the tube train, including themselves. In other circumstances, the armed response units are deployed when they do not know whether the people they are seeking to apprehend or stop will shoot them or use armed force against them. It is easy in the cold environment of the Chamber not to understand the terror, fear and pressure on people in those circumstances. What I am about to say, therefore, is not a criticism of them.
	That is not an excuse, however, for not knowing the full facts after the event or for pulling our legal punches. It is an absolute requirement that the killing of a British citizen by an agency of the state be properly and publicly reviewed, with access to all key data. That is the case for all sorts of reasons, some of which the right hon. Gentleman listed: to ensure that it is never done improperly and that there is never a deliberate killing by the state; to ensure that errors and accidents are never repeated; and to ensure that systemic failures are not repeated—very much an issue in the Jean Charles de Menezes case, and possibly an issue in the two cases to which he referred, the Rodney and Duggan cases.
	Also, not equally important but still massively important, it is necessary to ensure that the public, the families and the communities from which the people come have confidence in the system. The mother of a young man who has been shot should never feel that her son has been judicially—or, indeed, extra-judicially—executed. I am afraid that, in at least one case, that appears to be the situation. It is essential, therefore, that we have an open and fully informed inquest after every single fatal operation of the state against an individual, because that is what keeps us a civilised state. As the right hon. Gentleman said, in two cases that is either not possible
	or likely not to be possible: the Azelle Rodney case, which has already gone to a judicial inquiry, and potentially in the Mark Duggan case.
	As outlined, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000
	“specifically bars any evidence in court, or any question, assertion or disclosure in legal proceedings, which results from warranted interception or would reveal that warranted interception had taken place.”
	As the right hon. Gentleman said, that is an incredibly draconian restriction. That quotation came from the Chilcot committee’s summary. As a result, the Azelle Rodney case has gone to judicial inquiry, and, as I said, the Duggan case might well follow suit. This is a massive problem for the families and communities involved, but it is also a massive problem for open justice and a handicap for our national security.
	Some years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) and I went to the United States to talk to people about the whole question of the use of intercept. We talked to the National Security Agency, to the FBI—I think—to the Department of Justice and to the National Counterterrorism Centre. I have probably forgotten some of the other organisations, but every one of them said exactly the same thing: in summary, they could not do their jobs without the use of intercept in court. If I can quote him approximately correctly, the Department of Justice representative said, “If we go to a case”—either a major gang case, a major gangsterism or organised crime case, or a terrorism case—“and there is not intercept, the jury wonder what’s happened. They wonder why we have not got the intercept.” The idea that the criminals involved do not know that intercept technology is being used is therefore laughable—I use that word carefully. I will come back to that point.
	Incidentally, the Department of Homeland Security is another place we went to. The homeland security gentleman we spoke to—I cannot remember whether he was the deputy director or the head, but he was one or the other—said he could not understand why the British took the stance they took. It was quite clear that, for the Americans, intercept was not just a marginal advantage; it was a massive advantage in the fight against organised crime and terror. Similarly, the Australian evidence—we did not go to Australia—is much the same. There are some categories of case that simply cannot proceed without intercept—in particular, cases involving the importation of drugs. Again, the Australians said that anybody who does not use intercept is not acting seriously—that was the phrase of, I think, the director of public prosecutions federally in Australia.
	We are the only major democracy to have such a bar to the use of intercept evidence. The arguments are essentially twofold. First, if criminals knew they were being intercepted, they would cease to use the telephone or whatever medium was being intercepted, and that would lead to the loss of valuable intelligence. The right hon. Member for Tottenham made suitably short work of that viewpoint in his argument. Secondly, criminals might be able to work out the methods by which the intercept evidence had been obtained if it were used in court.
	In a minute I shall quote at some length from Lord Lloyd of Berwick; I should remind the House that he was a senior Law Lord and head of the Security Commission for most of the ’90s. He was the man
	whom the last Conservative Government asked to review the entire sweep of terrorist legislation and to revise it for them, and the last Labour Government implemented everything he recommended. That is how authoritative this man is. He is the man who knows more about this subject than anybody else in Britain—full stop—and he has tabled a Bill in the Lords to try to bring forward the change in the restriction that we are debating.
	Lord Lloyd of Berwick said the following about the legal position:
	“In common with every other common-law country, we have developed a means of protecting sensitive information that is thought to be at risk in some way. The principle is called public interest immunity; there is nothing new about it. It is well understood in the courts. I do not say that it is used every day but it is used very frequently.”
	He then set out where it came from and said:
	“It is inconceivable that a judge would order documents to be disclosed, or information to be discovered, that would reveal methods used by GCHQ and other agencies. If the judge went off his head and did so order, the prosecution would at once appeal to the Court of Appeal, which would put the situation right.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 March 2007; Vol. 690, c. 967.]
	That is clear and it is clearly correct. In fact, throughout the entire period, over decades, when we faced the Soviet threat, which, I have to say to the House, was much bigger than the al-Qaeda threat—it was more sophisticated, more dangerous and more existential—never once was what Lord Lloyd of Berwick described broken. Never once did a judge release into the public domain the sorts of the things that we are concerning ourselves with in this debate.
	Those who support the current ban then say, “But the European Court of Human Rights can overrule us and release this information to the criminals and the terrorists.” Actually, that is not the case. Using British criminal cases alone, we have clear direction and precedent. In Rowe and Davies v. United Kingdom 2000, the ECHR clearly stated that
	“as the applicants recognised, the entitlement to disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right. In any criminal proceedings there may be competing interests, such as national security or the need to protect witnesses at risk of reprisals or keep secret police methods of investigation of crime, which must be weighed against the rights of the accused. In some cases it may be necessary to withhold certain evidence from the defence so as to preserve the fundamental rights of another individual or to safeguard an important public interest.”
	I have not seen that put any clearer in any British court—that was the Strasbourg Court’s view—and that was not the only case. Almost exactly the same words were repeated in a subsequent case, Botmeh and Alami v. United Kingdom 2007. As Lord Lloyd said,
	“there is no absolute right to disclosure: disclosure is always subject to the overriding interest of national security.”
	Before I go on to outline the other inconsistencies, I want to point out that I think it highly unlikely that the ECHR would ever instruct us to release information. I know of cases in which it has admonished Governments for the destruction of information, but I know of no case in which it has instructed them to release it. Even if it did so, we demonstrated pretty clearly in a Backbench Business Committee debate on prisoners’ votes some time ago that, if the House so decides, it can defy an ECHR judgment if it thinks that it is against the
	national interest. At the end of the day, that is our final recourse. I cannot imagine the House doing anything other than voting against disclosure, if we were instructed to release such information. There has been a tendency for the agencies, which are understandably nervous of exposure to the courts, to overstate the risk. That was the one weakness in the otherwise powerful Chilcot report.
	It is an astonishing inconsistency, as the right hon. Member for Tottenham pointed out, that we can use foreign intercept evidence but not our own. A stark and, frankly, embarrassing example of that came to light after the Heathrow bomb plot, when the agencies had to obtain from Yahoo in California parallel intercept evidence to the evidence that I suspect they had in their own files. I cannot say that they had it, but I suspect that they did. I cannot think of a more laughable demonstration of the stupidity of the policy than our having to go to a foreign country to get evidence that we almost certainly already had.
	A second inconsistency is that we can use bugging, as the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out. If my telephone call to my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton were intercepted, that evidence could not be used, but if there were a bug in my phone, the evidence could be used. Is one more secret than the other, or more dangerous to disclose? I think not. We might want to withhold from criminals the knowledge that we were using a laser microphone and interferometry —a high-tech mechanism—but we could use that evidence in court, whereas we could not use intercept evidence. That strikes me as laughable.
	There is a third aspect of the matter that is laughable. The right hon. Gentleman said that GCHQ was a competent and capable organisation, and I agree with him. However, in this type of work, which is complex but not incomprehensible, our sophistication, capability, skills, innovations and edge are all a function of the amount of money that is spent. That is why we spend more money on GCHQ than on the other two agencies put together, but that is as nothing—a drop in the ocean—compared with what the American agencies use. They have no problem at all with placing their information in the public domain.
	Furthermore, we have the internet. Any terrorist or criminal operating in the UK can look on the internet and find examples of the things that we are supposed to be concealing. Let me provide a topical example. The other day we were told about a particular technique that one of the agencies wanted to protect. For obvious reasons, I cannot talk about it, but just out of curiosity I googled it. Guess what? There is an article about it on an American site, outlining exactly how it happens and how it is used. If our criminals and terrorists want to know about this technique, they need only reach for that fierce weapon of a Google search. This is simply ridiculous; we are hiding things that everywhere else in the world are in open sight, and I do not believe that we have skills so much greater than those of our allies and contemporaries to justify protecting ours above and beyond theirs.
	In my opinion we can safely allow intercept evidence in court without jeopardising our intelligence-gathering techniques above and beyond where they are now. However, my opinion is as nothing in comparison with the learned judgments of the most eminent security commission in
	modern times, for a start, and of at least two previous Directors of Public Prosecution, not to mention past Attorneys-General—I was corrected on the language by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips)—previous heads of the Met, previous incumbents of Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and a whole series of people who have been up close and personal with these issues. All of them want to use such information in court. I take their opinion with at least as much seriousness as I take the opinion of currently operating agencies which might be embarrassed about coming out into the public domain.
	These experts, moreover, point to fact that every major country uses such evidence without risk. It allows serious terrorists and criminals to be apprehended and convicted and, as has been intimated, the head of every single one of five mafia families in New York is now in prison. That would not be true without intercept. There are terrorists in prison today who would not be in prison without intercept. That is true in every country from America to Australia.
	The previous Government saw this problem as a serious handicap to our system—I give them that credit; I think they were open-minded about this—and set up the Chilcot Privy Council review of intercept evidence, which recommended careful reform of the law to allow the use of such evidence in court. I have some quibbles with it, but I think it is a pretty good report generally. That decision was then derailed by the Government’s and agencies’ over-interpretation of a case, Natunen v. Finland, in which the European Court on Human Rights rebuked the Finnish Government for destroying exculpatory intercept evidence.
	The ECHR was right to rebuke the Finnish Government on that. Evidence was not forced into the public domain, because it had already been destroyed. The Finnish Government took it on the chin and changed the basis for treatment pretty much straight away by introducing a judge to decide the process. That is fine. That Government have continued to use intercept. Since then, nothing has happened in Britain. As a result, the inquest over Azelle Rodney has been disallowed, and we now have a judicial inquiry. To remind Members of what happened to Azelle Rodney, he was shot with an assault rifle from a range of only 15 metres about half a dozen times. He died. Guns were found in the car he was in, so there might well have been good reason for the action taken, but we will never know because of this foolish and unwise restriction. As a result, his family is in a permanent state of grief, which will never be allayed by a judicial inquiry. If we do not put this right, the family of Mark Duggan and his community will be in the same position.
	It is time to put this matter right, and time we allowed these communities, families and people to know the truth, whatever the truth may be. It is also time that we gave the wider national community the enhanced security that would arise from a reform of the law, and the added protection that intercept evidence gives them—the ability to prosecute and convict serious criminals and terrorists. Finally, it is time we stopped asking our judicial authorities to act with one hand tied behind their back, and gave them the right to operate the law as it should be operated—with full knowledge of, and full insight into, the issues they have to resolve for us.

Paul Murphy: I am grateful for the opportunity to take part in such an important debate. We have already heard two extremely powerful speeches, from the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy).
	I want to concentrate on the specific issue of the use of intercept evidence in court and other judicial proceedings. Looking around the Chamber, I think that I am probably the only Member present who has had to sign warrants for the tapping of phones. I did it for three years as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and it was a very burdensome and awesome task. I knew, when I had to perform that task on every single day of the week, that I was depriving someone of his or liberty, and possibly doing something that was contrary to my better instincts, but I also knew that at the end of the day I was doing it to preserve life, to destroy terrorism, and to prevent criminals from doing the things that they did.
	I believe that—certainly in Northern Ireland, although I also had to sign warrants for the Home Office—many hundreds, indeed thousands, of lives were saved by the use of intercept evidence, which enabled us to prevent the sort of outrages to which, unfortunately, we had become accustomed over a period of 30 years. I do not think that this is an easy matter, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman or my right hon. Friend gave the impression that it was an easy thing to do. What they were saying was that it was an issue that we ought to address.
	The agencies and the police have made points that I think we ought to consider. The problem relating to disclosure in courts is huge, given our legal system. The revealing of technology and methodology has important implications, because criminals and terrorists are becoming more sophisticated by the day when it comes to the use of intercept and how to deal with it. As I have said, the issues are not easy.
	Both the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend made the important point that every other country in the world uses intercept evidence. There is a different legal system in continental Europe. However, Australia, the United States, New Zealand and Canada, our most important allies in these matters, are not burdened—if that is the right word to use—by the European Court of Human Rights, and I think that we should take the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the European Court very seriously.
	The other occasion on which I had to deal with the issue was when, as chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee—wearing a very different hat—I had to oversee the use of intercept. Having done it myself, I had to oversee what Secretaries of State did, with, of course, the enormous help of the Interception of Communications Commissioner.
	The Chilcot report made some important points. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) has been a distinguished member of the Chilcot Privy Council committee considering intercept as evidence for some time now. The agencies have produced some powerful arguments in favour of safeguards; the Chilcot inquiry came up with a long list of protections which I think the Government should examine very carefully, and which should be implemented in every single instance.
	However, looking at the intelligence that was given to me over a period of years and which we have used as a consequence of intercept—privately but not in courts—I have felt at times that terrorists and criminals could have been brought to justice and put behind bars had we used intercept evidence in court proceedings, in certain very special circumstances. I have thought very carefully about this, and I can see the arguments from both sides, but I have reached the conclusion that we must continue to think very hard about trying to ensure that we can use intercept evidence, however difficult that might be. As the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden said, when we go abroad and talk to people from other agencies similar to our own, we find that they are incredulous that we cannot use intercept evidence in our courts, given that every other country does. Difficult though this is, I urge the Minister and the Government to keep on trying. The danger in this debate is that we will give up and say, “It is not worth the bother. It is too difficult, so let’s not carry on any more.” There is now an onus on the Minister and his colleagues in government to ensure that we continue the debate and finally find a solution on this difficult issue.

Dominic Raab: I, too, pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) for raising this issue and for the way he has done so, particularly in relation to his constituents, but also in respect of the wider issues of justice at stake. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), I wish to discuss the big picture and then address specific issues relating to counter-terrorism and white collar crime.
	The big picture is that in this country, particularly since 9/11, we have somehow started to view the justice system as an impediment to fighting crime and to law enforcement, rather than as something that is integral to and part of the solution. My view is that the justice system is a weapon, because without it and its integrity law enforcement will always be subject to flaws, be open to challenge and be fickle and fragile. Over the past 10 years, the prosecutorial edge that we have in this country has, if anything, started to become blunter, because of these prevailing attitudes.
	In a cross-party debate that is being conducted in an admirable tone and spirit, I must make some criticism of the previous Government. Nobody doubts the pressures on government, given that the first duty is to protect the public, but since 9/11 and 7/7 we have seen a trend of excessive, hyperactive legislation, coupled with increasing surveillance, not just of terrorists and serious criminals but of the ordinary, average citizen. I am thinking of identity cards; the surveillance of not just terrorist suspects but people responsible for fly-tipping, dog pooping and so on; and the current proposals on the internet and e-mail, and text and BlackBerry messaging, which are really a rehash of earlier proposals under the previous Government.
	While we have had this ever-expanding criminal legislative base and net of surveillance, it seems that the one set of characters we are getting worse at tackling and bringing to justice using that surveillance are the terrorists. Between 2006 and 2010 convictions for terrorism offences fell by
	close to three quarters—75% is a massive drop at a time when we supposedly have an ever-increasing threat, a massively expanding criminal base and ever more use of surveillance. Despite all that we cannot address the No. 1 priority, which all in this House would agree is counter-terrorism. Incredibly, the most serious seem to slip through the ever-expanding net of surveillance.
	There are various aspects to what I regard as a serious and substantial prosecutorial deficit in this country. I understand the English Bar’s concerns about plea bargaining, but without going the whole hog and adopting the American approach we could make an incremental and stronger use of plea bargaining, particularly in cases of “joint criminal enterprise”, where concentric circles of active criminal participants are involved. We need to look at the issue of plea bargaining.
	We also need to have a far more robust prosecutorial policy. We saw with the Abu Hamza case the tendency of the intelligence agencies to sit back and watch, whereas he should have been nailed the minute he did something that crossed the line—the Americans take the latter approach. We saw the same thing at the time of the protests in 2006 against the Danish cartoons: eventually there were four convictions for the clear and flagrant criminal activity of inciting violence and murder but, boy, were we slow to respond. What message does it send if it takes six weeks to arrest people who were advocating murder on the streets of this country? We need to be more robust in the use of prosecution, because it is a weapon.
	The real missing piece in the jigsaw puzzle has been intercept evidence. I make no claim that it is the silver bullet or some kind of touchstone panacea, but its law enforcement value is beyond doubt. We are, as others have said, alone in the democratic world in not taking advantage of it.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden discussed the visit that he and I made to Washington in 2007, taking in the White House, the FBI and all the relevant law enforcement agencies. The impact there of intercept evidence is clear in action against kingpin mafia dons and counter-terrorism. An excellent report by Justice in 2007 reviewed 10 US terrorism plots involving 50 suspects since 9/11. The US authorities secured charges and convictions in each case using a 48-hour maximum pre-charge detention limit—bear in mind the debate we had in this country—and in every single case, that was made possible by intercept evidence.
	Former US Assistant Attorney General Ken Wainstein argues that intercept evidence is a vital part of the preventive strand of US counter-terrorism strategy—not just the prosecutorial, but the preventive strand—because of the disruption it causes in the concentric circles of terrorist actors. The way the US authorities use it in the joint criminal enterprise approach is to use plea bargaining to turn the minnows against the big fish and then work their way up the ladder, so to speak. Its disruptive impact is not only powerful in and of its own right, but it also has a strong deterrent effect.
	The Australian Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Damian Bugg QC, has highlighted the value of intercept evidence in drug trafficking cases, as well as terrorism cases. When asked about the analogous position in Britain, he says:
	“The use of telephone intercepts in trials for terrorism offences and other serious crimes is now quite common in Australia and I cannot understand why England has not taken the step as well.”
	Senior Canadian prosecutors make precisely the same point. We also have the evidence from our own law enforcement officials. The former DPP Sir Ken, now Lord, Macdonald told the Home Affairs Committee in 2009:
	“If we had intercept available as an evidential tool and if we were directing intercept capability towards the gathering of evidence, I am absolutely confident that our experience would mirror the experience of other jurisdictions where it is used very frequently to great effect”.
	The current DPP has drawn similar conclusions. He told the Committee:
	“Evidence obtained by interception would be of benefit to prosecution in this country, particularly in respect of counter-terrorism and organised crime.”
	That was not some abstract conclusion. He continued:
	“I base that answer on an analysis of the cases where we have been able to use foreign intercept evidence. There have recently been 11 such cases involving organised crime. In eight of those cases, there were pleas of guilty based on foreign intercept evidence.”
	We are missing a massive trick in this country. As others have mentioned, the assistant commissioner for counter-terrorism in the very difficult period between 2005 and 2007, Andy Hayman, said that while he began as a sceptic about the value of intercept evidence, he was turned around. Although I respect the Chilcot review and its conclusions, I have to say that in the light of the evidence made available both in this country and abroad by people who have taken a big picture, overarching and strategic view, I cannot accept that intercept is not of serious and substantial law enforcement value.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton—[Hon. Members: “That’s you.”] I am sorry; I meant my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden. I was confused because he was referring to me.

Stephen Phillips: And you made yourself a Privy Counsellor.

Dominic Raab: I think it is the only way I will get promotion these days.
	It is an anomaly that we have so many other sources of sensitive information that can be used in UK courts. What is so special about intercept evidence? The objections to its use—certainly those from Chilcot and other reviews—cluster around three or four issues. We have heard about article 6, the threat of disclosure of sensitive sources and the inadequacy of public interest immunity, but the truth is that every other jurisdiction that uses intercept evidence has a killer back-stop: if they fear disclosure, they drop the charges. There is zero risk of disclosure because the option of dropping charges and dropping a prosecution is always available.
	Another argument that has been made ad tedium is that a disproportionate part of the resources of the intelligence agencies, particularly GCHQ, would be absorbed, but that argument, which relates to transcription of the evidence, has been made almost totally redundant by modern information and communications technology and the ability to use it to store data and subsequently search it. That argument has therefore fallen by the wayside, but even so, the senior prosecutors I mentioned
	have made the point that the costs, to the extent that there are costs involved, are more than offset by the increasing number of people who plead guilty as a result of the use of intercept evidence.
	I will refer briefly to the Natunen case, because there has been a huge amount of misreporting of its impact and what it really means for the use of intercept evidence. The 2009 Home Office report, and other GCHQ sources, point to the Natunen case and claim that it requires
	“full retention of all intercepted material”
	just in case it might include something that shows a suspect is innocent. That is simply an inaccurate reflection of the Strasbourg case law. In the Natunen case, which concerned a drug dealer who was convicted in Finland using intercept evidence, the Strasbourg Court emphasises that
	“disclosure of relevant evidence is not an absolute right”,
	acknowledging
	“competing interests, such as national security or the need to protect witnesses”.
	The Court stated that it was not its role
	“to decide whether or not such non-disclosure was strictly necessary since, as a general rule, it is for the national courts to assess the evidence before them.”
	Far from requiring “full retention”—this is the key point—the Strasbourg Court required that defence requests for disclosure of sensitive evidence be backed up by “specific and acceptable reasons”. The intelligence agencies would need to retain some relevant material. However, the Court made it clear that that necessitated neither defence access to that evidence nor the wholesale retention of all intercept material. In the Finnish case, it merely required that a judicial body approve the destruction by the intelligence agencies of relevant intercept material, collected over a limited three-week period. Frankly, I think that the Natunen case has been blown out of all proportion.
	The real issue—I do not think that the agencies are making this up—is not the Aunt Sally or the false reasons that have been put up and are rebutted by the empirical evidence. The real reason is that GCHQ, which was originally an intercept organisation confined to the military zone, has had its functions broadened to include counter-terrorism and other serious crimes. Its role has increased exponentially. I can see why it worries about lack of focus and the huge competing obligations being placed on it with finite resources, notwithstanding the increases in its budget. I understand that, but that is a strategic issue of tasking intelligence, not a technical issue of viability.
	Likewise, the fact is that we face a cultural shift with regard to law enforcement and the division between intelligence and prosecution. It is a shift that has taken place in other countries but that our authorities have not yet to bridge and overcome. There is a cultural aversion in this country to combining intelligence with prosecution, and I think that we have to overcome it.

David Davis: I have long thought, partly as a result of the Northern Ireland experience, that our intelligence agencies are predisposed to go for disruption rather than prosecution. The whole nexus of the things my hon. Friend describes, their attitude to the use of intercept evidence and the problems addressing the exponential increase in GCHQ reinforce that. Does that
	not support the argument that a step change is needed from a disruptive approach to a prosecutorial approach, which is clearly what the Americans do, and with more success than us?

Dominic Raab: I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention and agree entirely. The other point to make is that the disruption model that has previously been used was shown to fail because of the huge increase in the number of terrorism suspects that successive heads of MI5 made clear in the public annual reports.
	I am conscious of the time and want to make two points in closing. First, I think that the use of intercept evidence is not just confined to inquests, as important as the points made by the right hon. Member for Tottenham are, and not even just to counter-terrorism. We have seen in relation to the LIBOR scandal an incredible situation in which rate rigging, according to the Government’s proposals, now requires a separate criminal legislative proposal. I find it astonishing that it is not an evidential issue, rather than the lack of a criminal base.
	Again, if we probe a little further into the work of the Serious Fraud Office and the Crown Prosecution Service, we find a very sleepy prosecutorial approach. Conviction for fraud by company directors fell by 48% between 2004 and 2010. Convictions for fraudulent accounting, which seem to me to be exactly what the rate rigging scandal was all about, fell by 77%. We need to wake up and stop having this interminable debate, which feels like a legislative version of “Groundhog Day”, about intercept evidence, to get on with lifting the ban and to use that evidence. The justice system is a weapon for, not an impediment to, law enforcement, and intercept evidence in prosecution must lie at its heart.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. I confess that I hesitated to contribute, given the authoritative speeches made so far, especially by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), who speaks with great authority, and by the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab), who has a great track record on these matters.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and his right hon. ally the Member for Haltemprice and Howden have done a demolition job on the status quo. I have not considered these matters as closely as I should have over the years; I have had other responsibilities and trusted the judgment and advice of colleagues. However, having been on the initial police parliamentary scheme, I am now doing a graduate scheme and looking at these matters more closely. The opportunity to come to this debate and listen to people with great experience has been valuable and of great interest.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made a powerful point. He said that we had not got the issue right so far. There have been reasons why we have not changed the rules. The Chilcot inquiry, and the role of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) in that, have been well documented, but we must keep trying.
	Both parties have been in power and both have decided that we are staying with the status quo; Home Secretaries of the left and right from both parties have stuck with the status quo. I only want to say that I am really looking forward to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), the shadow Home Office Minister, and of the Minister; I have a high regard for both. Given how anomalous we are among western democracies in not allowing intercept evidence and that the security and law enforcement agencies have clearly strongly advised against changing our position, I shall be interested to see whether there is any new thinking.
	All the speeches have clearly shown that the issue is a major one of human rights, citizenship, democracy and transparency. This has been a very authoritative debate, and I am pleased to have been here to listen to it.

Stephen Phillips: Like the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), I hesitated to rise in this debate; I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on having secured it. His contribution and those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) have been extraordinary and among the best that I have heard on this subject since I have been in the House.
	The debate has been extraordinary not only in its quality but in the fact that the House is having it yet again. I entered the House only in May 2010, yet the issue has been rumbling on not only in this Chamber but among lawyers—including those, such as me, who sit a few weeks a year judging crime—for a considerable period.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden is entirely right in saying that, as the position prevails at present, courts and prosecutorial authorities have one hand tied behind their backs. It is extraordinary that, as our colleagues from not only other democracies but other common law jurisdictions tell us, we are the only country that has never permitted the use of intercept evidence to secure the conviction of the guilty and—almost as importantly—the acquittal of the innocent.
	Notwithstanding the powerful speeches from both sides of the House, I want to concentrate on one other point. While we continue to exclude such evidence from our prosecutions in this country, we run the risk of interfering with our civil liberties. It may be, of course, that, as the last Government said during the last Parliament, none of those on control orders could have been prosecuted even if intercept evidence had been capable of being used in the courts. However, that is the sort of thing that Governments always say because they have it on advice from their security advisers.
	One of the things that has concerned me about the non-use of intercept evidence, which must compel us to move in the direction not only of looking at this question more closely but of coming to a resolution in favour of using such evidence, is that if we do permit it to be used we may end up with prosecutions in cases where hitherto we have had to use administrative measures that begin to interfere with people’s civil liberties. I hope that that
	is yet another reason that the Minister will be compelled to indicate to the House precisely when we will see the introduction of legislation in this context, in accordance with the recommendations not only of the whole House but of the Privy Counsellors who previously considered the matter.

Diana Johnson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) on an excellent speech. He was, as usual, a very powerful advocate for his constituents and his constituency, and for open justice, which is very important. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), a near neighbour of mine, made his usual compelling case for open justice and cogently set out the key issues in this case.
	The debate overall has been of an extremely high quality, with excellent contributions from across the House. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy) made a very good speech based on his own practical experience and knowledge in a number of roles. It was telling that he said that this is not an easy matter and that we need to keep on looking very hard at the use of intercept evidence. The hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab) set out a strong case for the motion and drew on his experience in the US. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) asked exactly the right questions, drawn from his practical experience with the police, about why we are not doing this and how we can move it forward. The hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) spoke briefly about civil liberties and, in particular, control orders. I want to return to his comments later.
	Over recent years, successive Governments, and particularly Home Secretaries, have grappled with the problems of trying to get intercept evidence into courts, and it has also been considered by the Privy Council review, so it is absolutely right that Parliament is debating the matter. We have heard at length about the benefits that might reasonably be expected to result from the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests as regards, for example, increases in the number of successful prosecutions in serious organised crime and terrorism cases. However, the debate must cover not only the benefits but the difficulties involved, including the risks, such as exposure of interception capabilities and techniques, the resource implications of any changes in the law, and the implications of new communications technology. While the United Kingdom continues to struggle to find a way of accommodating intercept evidence in court, other countries, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden, allow such evidence, and it is important for us to see what we can learn from those jurisdictions.
	This is a very unusual issue. Successive Governments, the Privy Council and leading lawyers have long supported the principle of allowing intercept evidence, but none has been able to come up with a satisfactory model for the admission of such evidence without compromising national security. Labour has long supported the principle of allowing intercept evidence into courts. Indeed, the current push to find a way of doing this was started by my former right hon. Friend and Home Secretary,
	John Reid, the then Member for Airdrie and Shotts, in 2007, and that commitment was reiterated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) when he was Home Secretary. In opposition, my right hon. Friends the Members for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) and for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) have reiterated Labour’s desire to see intercept evidence in court and to work with the Government in a constructive manner to achieve that. I restate that commitment.
	It is clear that there would be significant benefits in allowing intercept evidence to be admissible in a wider range of courts than is the case at present. In particular, it would be desirable to allow the use of intercept evidence in criminal proceedings and inquests.
	I am sure that we all sympathise with the Duggan family, who, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham has said, have unanswered questions. Understandably, they and the community in Tottenham want answers as to how Mr Duggan died, but without an inquest those answers cannot be provided. The Government have proposed secret inquests in which intercept evidence would be admissible, but that would not solve the problem—not only do we need justice to be done, but we need it to be seen to be done. I hope that the Minister will update us on the progress that he has made on this particular issue and I look forward to hearing his comments.
	Allowing intercept evidence would seem to support two fundamental principles of British justice. The first is that courts should always have the best evidence available to them, and the second is that all crimes should be dealt with by the same legal system and guided by the same principles. We should, wherever possible, ensure that our legal system is able to protect national security and uphold standards of justice.
	We would also like the use of intercept evidence to lead to practical outcomes, such as more prosecutions, particularly for serious crimes and terrorism. It is generally accepted that allowing intercept evidence would have a significant impact on some trials, facilitating some prosecutions and making others more likely. Indeed, the Crown Prosecution Service thinks that allowing intercept evidence would result in more prosecutions and more convictions, and it foresees time and money being saved as a result of more guilty pleas. We would particularly like to see the prosecution of cases that could not otherwise be tried, including those in which intercept evidence has led to a prosecution, but not necessarily for the most serious crime committed. It is often cited that allowing intercept evidence would reduce the need for other measures aimed at countering terrorism, namely pre-charge detention and terrorism prevention and investigation measures, or control orders as they were formerly known.
	We should not, however, overstate the practical benefits of allowing intercept evidence. I now want to turn to the point that the hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham made about control orders, or TPIMs as they are now known. The noble Lord Carlile, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, was unequivocal in saying that he felt that intercept evidence would not have made control orders obsolete. That was backed up by a report by an independent counsel commissioned by the Home Office. It concluded that allowing the use of intercept evidence would not be
	enough to facilitate trials in any of the cases of the nine people who were subject to control orders at the time. Indeed, the Privy Council concluded:
	“We have not seen any evidence that the introduction of intercept as evidence would enable prosecutions in cases currently dealt with through Control Orders.”

David Davis: I will put to one side one of the weaknesses of the Privy Council report, namely its assessment of the effectiveness of intercept in prosecutions, and take up the issue of control orders. When we eventually allowed the use of control orders, our presumption when in opposition was that they would allow the control of people who could not be prosecuted in the courts because the available evidence—in other words, intercept evidence—could not be used there. Now we are being told that such people are having their freedom removed on the basis of, in essence, suspicion, because there is nothing beyond intercept other than suspicion. Members on both Front Benches are in a Catch-22 situation: either intercept is effective in dealing with control orders, or control orders are being imposed on the basis of suspicion alone.

Diana Johnson: The right hon. Gentleman raises an issue that could be debated for many hours. I think that his first point—that evidence was available—is the correct one. However, a review has taken place and the view of the independent counsel, who was commissioned by the Home Office, is that what the right hon. Gentleman has said is not correct. I have only limited time left, so I will move on. We will have to differ on that.
	The number of criminal cases in which intercept evidence might be used is limited. An independent survey conducted in 2004 concluded that allowing intercept evidence would secure no more than 20 to 30 additional convictions a year.
	Under the current arrangements, intercept evidence is of significant use for the protection of national security and the detection of serious crime. The Privy Council’s report into intercept evidence gives an excellent summary of the importance of wiretapping to UK law enforcement agencies. Under the current arrangements, the UK is able to benefit from intelligence gleaned from wiretapping, without compromising intelligence capabilities. Wiretapping often facilitates the collection of other admissible forms of evidence.
	The Serious Organised Crime Agency has stated that
	“interception, together with communications data, is the single most powerful tool for responding to serious and organised crime.”
	It is because the current regime is so successful that the Metropolitan police currently secures a conviction in 88% of cases where it has employed intercept evidence. It estimates that that would rise only to 92% if intercept evidence were to become admissible. The more sophisticated criminals become, the greater the need for more advanced detection techniques and the greater the need to protect those intelligence techniques.
	Of course, we cannot discuss individual cases or the evidence involved in them in Parliament, but it is clear from independent studies that law enforcement and Security Service agencies have provided numerous examples of intercept evidence having been used to apprehend
	wanted criminals, seize drugs or stolen property, or alert law enforcement agencies of planned criminal activities, enabling them to gather the admissible evidence that they require. We must recognise the important role that wiretapping already plays in the fight against crime and terrorism, and the importance of not jeopardising that success. The Privy Council stressed its belief that:
	“The overriding objective should be to promote national security.”
	That has been the position of successive Governments, and is the position of the Opposition.
	If there was an easy solution to this problem, it would have been produced, but there is not. I will touch on a few of the issues that have prevented previous Governments from allowing wire-tap evidence in court. I hope that the Minister will update the House on what progress has been made on each issue. How can we allow the use of intercept evidence in courts, while protecting the most sensitive information which, if made public, would reveal a particular intelligence technique or source, and while upholding the principle of the equality of arms, under which the defence must have access to and be able to present all the relevant information?
	The central desire is to protect the work of the security services and the techniques that they use. Proponents of the use of intercept evidence often counter that by saying that criminals are already aware of the intelligence services’ ability to intercept calls. However, the Privy Council rejected that point and said that criminals’ knowledge is currently conjecture based on rumour and that, while a few of their presumptions may be right, the evidence is that most of them are wrong.
	Partnership is important. Earlier, I set out some of the successes of the current regime. Those are based on partnership between law enforcement agencies and the security services, between the UK and our international allies, and between state agencies and communication service providers. There is concern that any attempt to allow intercept evidence in court would jeopardise those successful partnerships. Indeed, some communication service providers have indicated that it would make them much less willing to co-operate. I hope that the Minister will respond to those points.
	Much has been said about other jurisdictions. I would appreciate it if the Minister again set out clearly the unique position of the United Kingdom’s legal system, which is very different from that of some of the other countries that have been cited, such as France and Spain.
	In conclusion, we all want to have intercept evidence in court. We want answers for the families of those who have died in controversial circumstances, where an inquest cannot take place. However, we have to acknowledge that this is a complex process and that at stake is a system that has delivered a lot towards the protection of our national security and in tackling international crime. It is not clear that any other country uses intercept-gained evidence as effectively as the United Kingdom.
	The Opposition will of course work with the Government to get intercept evidence into courts without compromising national security, and international examples, particularly from Canada and the US, give us some indication of how that might be achieved. I hope the Minister will be able to update the House on the progress that the Government have made towards that end, and particularly
	on what plans he has to allow inquests such as Mark Duggan’s to take place; what processes are currently under way to evaluate the practicalities involved in allowing intercept evidence; what processes are in place for the Government to take expert advice from lawyers, law enforcement agencies and the intelligence services to that end; and whether he has any plans to bring forward a Green Paper.

James Brokenshire: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), as other Members have done, on securing the debate. As it is a Back-Bench debate, I am conscious of the need to allow him some time to respond at the end, so I will try to keep my comments to the point and respond as succinctly as I am able to a number of points that have been raised.
	I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman also on the manner and tone that he has brought to this afternoon’s discourse. I certainly recognise his desire to represent his constituents and obtain answers on behalf of his community. I know from discussions that we had around the time of the riots that he has stood up for his community in doing so, and that has been reflected in the manner in which the debate has been conducted.
	I hope the right hon. Gentleman understands that because of ongoing legal and other issues, I cannot really comment on the specifics of individual cases. I am aware that the pre-inquest hearing in the case that he mentioned is due to be held next Tuesday, and there is an ongoing IPCC investigation. I certainly recognise the sensitivity of the issues that he has brought before the House this afternoon.
	I pay tribute also to my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), whom I had the privilege to work alongside in opposition. I know how keenly he feels about these issues and the amount of work that he continues to put into answering the challenging question of how we can use intercept evidence.
	We had an important contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr Raab). I certainly do not see the justice system as an impediment to fighting crime, and justice and security need to go hand in hand. I do not see them as somehow mutually inconsistent. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), with his experience as a former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and in his role with the Intelligence and Security Committee, highlighted some of the genuine challenges that exist, which I shall discuss. We also heard contributions from the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), and a balanced and helpful contribution from the Opposition Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson).
	I underline that the Government are committed to maximising the amount of sensitive material, including intercept evidence, that can be handled in legal proceedings. That is why we set out in the coalition agreement our intention to
	“seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.”
	We have also proposed measures in the Justice and Security Bill to permit intercepted material to be adduced in closed material procedures and certain civil proceedings. In doing that, we remain acutely aware that lawful interception already plays a critical role in tackling serious crime and protecting the British public. It is used in almost all the highest priority counter-terrorist operations and many other serious crime investigations. It is no exaggeration to say that interception constitutes one of the most important and effective capabilities in tackling serious crime and threats to our national security, so it is crucial that we get it right.
	We have heard about the Privy Council review and the differing legal and operational circumstances that apply in that regard and it is worth highlighting the considerable burdens on some of the intercepting agencies. Inter-agency co-operation, such as the sharing of sensitive techniques, is less well developed in other countries than it is in the UK, but the comparable examples in other jurisdictions suggest that fewer investigations could be supported and the value of intercept evidence as an intelligence tool might be reduced. It is right, however, that we should continue to examine the examples highlighted in a number of speeches and find our way through this important question.
	I should make it clear that when there is relevant and sensitive material, the Government wish to find a mechanism that will enable it to be used in evidence. Finding a means of using intercept as evidence is challenging, however. There can be no clearer demonstration of that than the seven previous attempts that have been made to find a way forward. Any proposal to remove the prohibition on intercept evidence for inquests, for example, runs into a number of difficulties, and we and previous Governments have grappled with them as they relate to the general question of intercept evidence.
	One option proposed by the right hon. Member for Tottenham is the disclosure of intercept product to a jury and properly interested persons, such as a family member. This Government considered that, as did our predecessor, and we do not believe that there is a practical way of preserving national security and the basic tenets of the make-up of juries. Crucially, intercept products shared with either a jury or properly interested party takes us back to the more general challenges presented by intercept as evidence, including preventing sensitive capabilities, techniques and approaches from becoming widely known. As things stand, we do not see that there is a viable way forward on that specific point.
	The right hon. Gentleman also asked whether it would be possible for a coroner with the status of a judge to view sensitive material, including intercept evidence. We already have a mechanism through which a coroner may request the appointment of a serving judge as an assistant deputy. That enables the judge coroner to order the disclosure of intercept evidence to him or herself alone when a case’s exceptional circumstances make that disclosure essential in the interests of justice.
	The judge coroner would have access to all sensitive material and could consequently be satisfied that the material provided in open court was all that was necessary to hold a proper thorough investigation. That independent assessment would give assurance to the jury and comfort to the family that all the relevant material had been placed before them. Of course, in a small number of cases that sensitive material would be centrally relevant
	and the article 2 investigative obligation would be engaged. In those circumstances, a statutory inquiry would be needed so that the inquiry panel, as the finders of facts, could see all relevant material. The independent examination of the material, however, together with the appointment of counsel to the inquiry, should ensure that proper account is taken of all the available material and that the interests of the family are properly protected, even if the material cannot be shared publicly.

Paul Goggins: I apologise that I was not in the Chamber to hear some of the earlier speeches. I have listened carefully to the Minister. Given what he has just said, will the Government think again about their decision not to provide for a closed material procedure for inquests—something they are prepared to provide in a small number of civil cases?

James Brokenshire: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, that matter was considered during discussions on the Justice and Security Bill currently in the other place, but the Government have determined that at this time it is not appropriate to bring those procedures forward. I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman heard me say that there is an existing mechanism to assess sensitive material, either through the appointment of a judge coroner to assess the relevancy and centrality of the evidence, or through the inquiry process I have highlighted.
	The intercept as evidence review is obviously key to this discussion. It is an extensive and detailed review to assess the benefits, costs, and risks of introducing intercept as evidence in criminal proceedings, compared with the present intelligence-only approach under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It has a broader remit than previous reviews, thereby avoiding wasted effort on approaches that prove to be non-viable, or being artificially constrained by existing intercept practice. Instead, it will ensure a fair and comprehensive assessment of the pros and cons of intercept as evidence.
	The issues are complex and difficult, and as we have heard, there have been seven previous attempts since 1993 to find a way forward. The work is being overseen by the independent cross-party Privy Council group, chaired by Sir John Chilcot, which was reappointed by the Government. As the review is still ongoing, I am not in a position to provide the House with an update on its likely findings, but we will consider issues raised in this debate carefully and return to the House on the matter in due course. We do not want some form of open-ended
	process, and we recognise the desire to find solutions and a way forward. This is a current review, and work is ongoing to consider whether there is a way to proceed in the face of the challenges we have heard about.
	The current intercept as evidence review seeks to build on the findings of previous reviews and the potential impact of a need for terrorist prevention and investigation measures. One clear conclusion of that previous work is that intercept evidence is not a silver bullet that will negate the need for alternative ways to manage risk. We have heard some examples of that this afternoon, and I highlight recent evidence from David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, who reiterated that intercept as evidence would not be
	“a silver bullet that makes terrorism prevention and investigation measures unnecessary”.
	A number of issues have been highlighted this afternoon, but I fear that time will not allow me to go through them all in the detail I would have wished. Many overseas countries, both EU and Commonwealth, operate effective intercept as evidence regimes within their legal context. Their experience indicates, however, that the burdens on the intercepting agencies are considerable. The issues of disclosure and how to secure a fair trial are obviously central, and that has been highlighted this afternoon in relation to article 6 provisions. Disclosure, and the practical impact of that on agencies and their overall capabilities, is relevant and something that is being examined closely in the cost-benefit, overarching analysis on capabilities.
	I will conclude by reassuring you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the Government are committed to finding ways for intercept evidence of sensitive material to be heard in legal proceedings. I am grateful to the House and all right hon. and hon. Members for helping to inform the debate this afternoon, and for assisting in this important work.

David Lammy: I am grateful for the support I have received from across the House. I do not think that an inquiry is the way forward in a case of this magnitude and given the nature of an inquest. However, I have heard the Minister’s remarks about the inquest powers of a judge alongside a coroner, and I will look into that.
	Question put and agreed  to .
	Resolved,
	That this House notes with concern that the inquest into the death of Mark Duggan may never commence under the current arrangements for the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests; and calls on the Government to review its approach to open justice, in particular the use of intercept evidence in courts and inquests.

PSEUDOXANTHOMA ELASTICUM

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Dunne.)

Nick de Bois: I am grateful for this opportunity to debate pseudoxanthoma elasticum, which is a hereditary disorder that can lead to the normal elastic fibres of the skin, eyes and cardiovascular system gradually becoming calcified, causing characteristic symptoms. I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box with his new responsibilities, and am grateful that my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who also has an interest in this matter, has joined me in this important debate.
	It is estimated that about one in 25,000 people in the world have PXE. That could mean that up to 2,500 people in the UK have the condition. Clearly, it is a rare condition, but it is potentially devastating, because approximately 60% of PXE sufferers will develop eye problems, and many experience the loss of central vision. Therefore, 1,300 people may go blind—it generally happens from their 40s onwards, but we know that it can happen to people as young as 9 years old, because any injury to the head can lead to the onset of a bleed in the eye, resulting in the sudden loss of central vision.
	I should take this opportunity to thank Elspeth Lax who runs the PXE support group which has championed many individual cases in the UK, where there is a frustrating lack of knowledge among the wider medical community, including among cardiologists, ophthalmologists and general practitioners. The level of knowledge is hit and miss.
	Although there is a knowledge vacuum, it is far smaller than it was 30 years ago, when Mrs Lax was told, on diagnosis, that she would go blind, and that she should give up work and not have any children. To date, her support group has looked after 567 patients in the UK, the youngest of whom was born with skin markings in six places. That is rare, but, as I said, my concern is that PXE patients can go on to lose their central vision at any time.
	I am also grateful to PXE International. Its Facebook page has allowed me to engage with UK citizens and others from around the world, and to contrast UK health care management with that of other countries. PXE sufferers affectionately call themselves “PiXiEs”—the community name is used among sufferers, indicating their good humour and stoicism as they explore and expand their knowledge. It might interest the House to know that, such is the following created since the announcement of the debate, we are being watched in America over the internet.
	The debate was prompted by the case this summer of Dawn Thomas, the wife of Lance Corporal Thomas, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Burton, who will speak later in the debate. She was initially denied funding for anti-vascular endothelial growth factor medications, which are otherwise and forthwith called anti-VEGFs, which slow sight loss by stopping blood vessels that inhibit sight forming or growing. The primary care trust eventually conceded on funding the treatment, but my hon. Friend will deal with that later.
	My interest was spurred because, as the Minister well knows, I have a continuing and long-standing interest in matters health, as evidenced by my support for health reform, and I am currently co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on primary care and public health. I should also remind the House that my wife was diagnosed with the condition at age 7, although she is fortunately not seeking treatment for sight deterioration. I appreciate the opportunity to put that on the record.
	I intend to focus entirely on the deteriorating loss of central vision, not the complications arising from calcification, which include loss of skin elasticity and gastro bleeds. To do that, I shall highlight to the Minister four key points. First, notwithstanding what I have said, all PXE patients lead a normal, active and long life, if their sight is not compromised. No shortening of lifespan is attributed to PXE. Secondly, the treatment for the sight deterioration, which is similar but not identical to wet macular degeneration, can be treated by Avastin and Lucentis, as the drugs are known in this country. This treatment significantly enhances patients’ quality of life by preserving their sight, but, as he knows, Avastin is sometimes used “off licence” by primary care trusts—though I do not wish to go into that matter now. Treatment involves periodic injections into the eye and requires regular check-ups to detect any deterioration. It is not possible to predict the number of treatments a patient will need, but, according to the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, the recommended cost of Lucentis is just short of £800 per treatment.
	Thirdly, I and PXE patients believe that there is both a humane and an economic case for ensuring that Avastin and Lucentis are available on the NHS for PXE patients and—crucially—on a timely and pre-authorised basis. That would avoid greater cost to the state, if a person loses their sight. Fourthly, time is critical in getting treatment to prevent sight deterioration. Overall, my point is that, unfortunately, both the NHS process and the lack of information and awareness within the medical community put sight-saving treatment at risk. The condition is not widely understood. As a result, urgent treatment is often not delivered in a timely manner.
	The Government have a crucial role in overcoming that problem by ensuring that all PXE patients are looked after, and given tests and treatment promptly. The benefit would be not only sight-saving treatment for patients but a longer-term economic saving to the NHS and wider economic value, because patients could continue to work and enjoy a full life. Currently, the patient pathway works against this goal. It might take a week or longer to see a general practitioner, then a letter has to be sent to a consultant, after which it might take between four and eight weeks to get an appointment. That might mean the loss of critical time.
	After that, more time might be lost, if the PCT does not agree to fund Lucentis. Why? Even though it is used for eye injections to treat WMD, NICE has not approved Lucentis for PXE—it was not even considered as part of the appraisal. We therefore have this bizarre situation: there could be two people at the same hospital and requiring the same treatment, one with WMD and the other with PXE. The first could get the drugs without any special application to the PCT, while the patient with PXE, which is one of the rarest diseases I have come across, could not, simply because it was not
	licensed at the time. Soon, following the changes to commissioning, clinical commissioning groups will be making these decisions locally—a dangerously slow process—which is absurd, given that the drug has been authorised for age-related WMD.
	Although many of the victims of this condition are in danger of losing their sight, most likely over the age of 40, in reality a blow to the head can cause a bleed, leading to loss of vision, quite possibly within days. Fast treatment is essential, and, because a blow to the head is often not the result of an emergency incident, gaining treatment at an early stage is unlikely. Sometimes it is only with the help of active support groups that people avoid losing their sight.
	There is an important distinction between age-related wet macular degeneration and PXE, because although PXE can also strike at a young age, it is a genetic condition, not a degenerative condition. That is why it has been identified as a rare condition that we can treat. Patients therefore can and should be able to continue to lead long and productive lives, because not only is it the duty of the publicly funded NHS to provide such treatment, but it makes economic sense. The Royal National Institute of Blind People, for example, estimates that the annual cost to the public purse of supporting a person with loss of vision is somewhere in the region of £14,500. According to a 2009 report commissioned by the RNIB via Access Economics, that excludes the cost of informal care, which is often provided by family members and friends, as one would anticipate.
	My message and my request for the Minister in this debate is this. Support for the case for anti-VEGFs being additionally licensed for PXE is crucial, and I do not believe it will be expensive. That is something that, I hope with the support of the Government, we may be able to pursue, so that we can avoid any frankly critical time being lost should a PCT or future CCG not understand or wish to authorise that. It is equally crucial that there should be support for greater awareness of PXE in the NHS among clinicians, as well as CCGs and their support groups, so that they understand the need for urgent treatment. It is perfectly understandable why a disease that, at best, will affect 2,500 people is not widely understood or at the top of the agenda. However, given the narrative that the House has just heard, I hope that what are proven drugs—which can so easily mitigate the potentially life-changing outcomes of this rare disease—can be made available on an on-demand basis.

Andrew Griffiths: May I begin by thanking you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker for allowing me to make a brief contribution to this Adjournment debate? I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on the work that he has done on this important issue. He talked about the support group, and I am delighted to say that he has been a great friend of the PiXiEs. His continued support in raising the issue has gone a long way to reassure sufferers that somebody is taking notice and that somebody cares about the terrible situation in which they find themselves.
	As my hon. Friend said, I come to this debate because of a constituency case. Mrs Dawn Thomas came to my constituency surgery a few months ago. Hon. and right
	hon. Members will know that MPs’ surgeries are quite often the destination of last resort. People come to us in desperation when they have tried every other avenue and taken every other opportunity. They have asked everybody else they can think of for help; they then come to their MP and expect us to deliver what others have not been able to deliver. Often we are put in a difficult position, but I can honestly tell the House that when I was confronted by Mrs Thomas and her husband my heart went out to them. Theirs was a desperate situation, and one that in the 21st century we surely cannot allow to continue.
	Let me put the matter in context. Mrs Thomas is a young woman—she is 44 years old—and she is a mother. She plays an active role in her community. She works as a secretary in a local haulage company. She enjoys playing darts. She has never claimed benefits; she pays her taxes. She has done everything right in playing her part in the big society, yet she was diagnosed with PXE at the age of 21—I congratulate my hon. Friend on his dexterity in using the technical terminology in his speech, but I will take the easy option and refer to it as PXE. In the meantime, Mrs Thomas lost the sight of her left eye as a result of another illness. She had no real symptoms of PXE until about two months ago, when her sight began to deteriorate rapidly. In desperation, she went to her GP, who referred her to a consultant. The consultant gave her the devastating news that she had PXE and that she would go blind.
	There was hope, however, in that there was a treatment out there that could save Mrs Thomas’s sight and allow her to lead her life as she knew it. She applied for the treatment but was refused by the primary care trust. She appealed, and received a devastating, formal, bureaucratic letter that told her in no uncertain terms that she would go blind. To receive such a letter must be a dreadful experience for a wife and mum. That is why she came to see me.
	The story was taken up by my local newspaper, the Burton Mail, which campaigned on Mrs Thomas’s behalf, and by the national press. I am grateful to South Staffordshire PCT for looking again at her case. At the first appeal, however, it said that her case was not exceptional enough. I would say that anyone’s sight was exceptional, and that we should do all that we can to save it. I am delighted to say that the PCT reviewed her case, and that she is now receiving the treatment that she deserves.
	The PCT has confirmed to me that the cost of treating Mrs Thomas with Lucentis is £18,000, while the cost of Avastin is just £8,000. Let us compare either of those sums to the cost to the taxpayer if she were to go blind. She would be unable to work, and she would be forced to claim benefits. Surely it makes economic sense for the Government to give her the treatment that she needs at an early stage, so that she can keep her sight and continue to lead the life that she loves. I am sure that the House will understand that no MP wants to be in the situation that I found myself in when I had to tell Mrs Thomas that the NHS could not help her, and that she was facing blindness.

Norman Lamb: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Nick de Bois) on securing the debate.
	He told the House that his wife had been diagnosed with PXE, and I am sure that this is a matter of great personal concern to him. I am grateful to him for engaging with me and the Department before the debate. I am keen to ensure that we maintain a continuing discussion on this matter. We cannot answer all the questions in the debate today, and we cannot change the whole system or the way in which the NHS operates, but let us discuss the genuine problem that has been highlighted today.
	I should also like to acknowledge the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths), who spoke movingly about his constituent’s situation. He drew our attention to the fact that, while losing one’s sight is a critical matter for an individual, the cost to society and to the Government demonstrates powerfully the case for treatment in those circumstances. I also want to pay tribute to Elspeth Lax for her tireless work. We owe people like her, and the support groups that offer support to hundreds of patients with many different conditions, an enormous debt of gratitude.
	I completely take on board the importance of fast access to treatment. It is critical. Indeed, the NHS constitution makes the point that citizens have a right to a speedy decision, without delay. People need to exercise their rights under the constitution in cases such as these.

Nick de Bois: It is worth highlighting that, because of the shortcomings, many people suffering from this condition have resorted to paying for their drugs themselves privately, such is the urgency of their situation.

Norman Lamb: I completely understand that. The debate has focused on the effects of the condition on the eye, and these matters are of considerable concern to people with PXE.
	There are no licensed eye treatments for PXE. People with PXE should be advised on healthy lifestyle measures, such as stopping smoking, adopting a healthy diet and taking physical exercise, to reduce the risk of complications. They should also be monitored regularly by a health care professional. As it is a genetic condition, patients who are considering having children should receive genetic counselling, and first-degree relatives should be screened. Because of the similarities between age-related macular degeneration and PXE in the eye, some clinicians may consider using treatments that are effective in AMD, including laser treatment and the drugs Avastin and Lucentis, which have already been mentioned. My understanding, however, is that PXE has a different cause and a different process, and patients with PXE might not respond to those treatments in exactly the same way.
	Lucentis is considered by some clinicians to be effective in treating people whose eyes have been affected by PXE. I have also mentioned Avastin, but neither Lucentis nor Avastin are licensed by their manufacturer for use in the treatment of patients with PXE. The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence has appraised or is currently appraising the use of Lucentis in the treatment of other eye conditions such as wet age-related macular degeneration and other conditions—diabetic macular oedema and retinal vein occlusion, for example—but Lucentis is currently recommended in NICE technology appraisal guidance only as a treatment for wet AMD, subject to certain criteria.
	Clinicians may prescribe any treatment, including an unlicensed treatment or a product not licensed for a particular condition, where they consider it to be the best available medicine to meet the clinical needs of their patients—it is for the judgment of the clinician—subject to their primary care organisation agreeing to fund the treatment. Primary care organisations, too, are legally obliged to provide funding so that treatments that have been positively appraised by NICE are available on the NHS. In the absence of relevant NICE guidance, these primary care organisations are responsible for making funding decisions based on an assessment of available evidence and on the basis of an individual patient’s circumstances.
	Where a decision is taken not to fund a treatment, primary care organisations must have a process to allow for the possibility that an individual may have exceptional circumstances—I absolutely take the point that loss of sight needs to be taken very seriously into consideration—which justify access to treatment that is not available to the rest of the population. If doctors feel that there are exceptional clinical circumstances, they can request treatments that are not usually funded on behalf of their patients through an individual funding request. I recognise, as I have said, that time can be of the essence in these cases. In this situation, a special panel that includes clinicians would carefully consider individual cases against the latest medical evidence and decide whether the treatment could be approved.
	Under the NHS constitution, patients have the right to expect local decisions about the funding of medicines and treatments to be made rationally and without delay following a proper consideration of the evidence. If new evidence arises to support the use of a treatment or if an individual’s clinical circumstances change, a new individual funding request can be made. To help organisations make these difficult decisions, the Department has issued a set of core principles, and primary care organisations are required to have in place clear and transparent arrangements for local decision making on funding of drugs and for considering exceptional funding requests.
	I shall deal now with the general issue of the commissioning of services for people with rare conditions. This Government are committed to providing the best quality of care for people with rare conditions. When we took office in 2010, we endorsed the right in the NHS constitution that says no one should be left behind just because of the rarity of their condition. Lack of awareness is, of course, often a real problem. The importance we attach to services for people with rare conditions has been clearly demonstrated in the reforms set out in the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North was active in supporting during its passage through Parliament. As a result, specialised and highly specialised services, which are currently commissioned at both a national and regional level through a range of NHS organisations, will be brought together under one roof. From April 2013, the new NHS Commissioning Board will directly commission services for people with rare diseases on a national basis. The board will have a clear focus on specialised services organised around programmes of care. These new arrangements for the commissioning of specialised services provide a unique opportunity to do
	things more effectively and smarter than in the past, and will bring real benefits to patients with rare conditions, including to patients with PXE.
	Moving to a national standard system of commissioning while maintaining a local focus managed through the board’s four regions and the local area teams will provide the geographic and speciality oversight that is needed for these services. The commissioning board will set out a detailed service specification for each of the services that it will commission directly. That will link national service knowledge and expertise with local contract knowledge of providers and pathways of care, cementing the new system together in the interests of patients. The benefits to patients with rare conditions are clear: a single national commissioning policy and better planning and co-ordination will result in improved consistency around the country.
	The Government are also committed to increasing awareness—which I mentioned earlier—of very rare conditions such as PXE. That commitment has been demonstrated through the UK’s involvement in the development of the UK plan for rare diseases. We shared our views on the proposed plan earlier this year, launching our consultation on 29 February, rare disease day. The consultation document was produced jointly by the four nations of the United Kingdom, and the consultation closed on 25 May.
	The consultation responses will inform the UK plan, which is being developed in response to the 2009 European Council recommendation on rare diseases. That recommendation, which was supported by the UK, asked every member state to develop a national plan or strategy for rare diseases by the end of 2013. My officials are currently working through all the consultation responses—there were more than 350, which demonstrates the level of interest—and are writing a summary of the responses. They expect to publish it later in the autumn, with the final plan being published next year.
	This is the first time that the UK has developed a plan to tackle rare diseases. The plan will bring together a number of recommendations designed to improve the co-ordination of care and to lead to better outcomes for everyone with a rare disease, including people with PXE. However, a plan in isolation is clearly not enough. This plan will need buy-in from everyone in the system. With that in mind, my officials have been working closely with the newly formed NHS Commissioning Board to ensure that the plan has traction within the system, so that people know about it and understand its power.
	In comparison with some other member states, the UK already has good systems for supporting and treating people with rare diseases through the provision of
	specialised services, but that does not mean that we cannot do better. For example, more co-ordinated care saves patients time, money and stress by avoiding the need for multiple visits to various clinics and hospitals, which has too often been people’s experience in the past. We are also considering how rare diseases can be better represented in training curricula. That is critical to raising the level of knowledge and capacity in the system.
	People with rare diseases are likely to come into contact with professionals from a range of disciplines: from GPs through geneticists and researchers to nurses, surgeons, mental health teams and social care workers. It is for that reason that the UK plan for rare diseases will be targeted at the whole of the health and social care sectors. The final plan will set out a coherent and joined-up approach to tackling rare diseases. It will acknowledge existing developments, such as the contribution that expert centres can make to better diagnosis and treatment of rare diseases, while proposing a number of further developments, such as better information for patients so that they can be fully engaged and helped to understand and manage their conditions.
	The plan will include recommendations, actions and examples of best practice for commissioners of specialised services, royal colleges, providers of information, and staff on the ground who deliver care to people with rare diseases. It will recognise that each nation of the UK has different health care systems, and it will be for each nation to implement it in accordance with its own priorities and patterns of service. In England, much of the implementation of the final plan will be for the new commissioning board in its role as a single national commissioner of specialised and highly specialised services.
	I am grateful to my hon. Friends for raising this important issue. The value of a debate such as this is that it forces Ministers to focus on rare diseases to which we might not have devoted time otherwise. I shall be happy to continue to engage with the issue to ensure that patients with PXE are given the treatment and care that they deserve.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.
	Correction
	Official Report, 17 October 2012, In column 444, Division No. 82, insert Qureshi, Yasmin in the Noes.